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

49–598 PDF 2010

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S 

EDUCATION AGENDA 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND LABOR 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 20, 2009 

Serial No. 111–23 

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 

[Vacant] 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California, 

Senior Republican Member 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

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 

John Kline, Minnesota 

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 

Sally Stroup, Republican Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on May 20, 2009 ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Ehlers, Hon. Vernon J., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Michigan, prepared statement of ............................................................. 47 

McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck,’’ Senior Republican Member, Committee 

on Education and Labor ............................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6 

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

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

Questions submitted to Secretary Duncan for the record ...................... 48 

Statement of Witnesses: 

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

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 13 

Responses to questions submitted for the record ................................... 61 

(1) 

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S 

EDUCATION AGENDA 

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Education and Labor 

Washington, DC 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 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, Hinojosa, McCarthy, Tierney, Wu, Holt, Davis, Grijalva, 

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

Courtney, Shea-Porter, Fudge, Polis, Tonko, Pierluisi, Sablan, 

Titus, McKeon, Petri, Castle, Ehlers, Biggert, Platts, Kline, McMorris Rodgers, Price, Guthrie, Cassidy, Hunter, Roe, and Thompson. 

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

Education Policy Advisor/Investigator; Catherine Brown, Education 

Policy Advisor; Alice Cain, Senior Education Policy Advisor (K-12); 

Fran-Victoria Cox, Staff Attorney; Adrienne Dunbar, Education 

Policy Advisor; Curtis Ellis, Legislative Fellow, Education; Denise 

Forte, Director of Education Policy; Ruth Friedman, Senior Education Policy Advisor (Early Childhood); David Hartzler, Systems 

Administrator; Fred Jones, Staff Assistant, Education; Sharon 

Lewis, Senior Disability Policy Advisor; Ricardo Martinez, Policy 

Advisor, Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning 

and Competitiveness; Stephanie Moore, General Counsel; Alex 

Nock, Deputy Staff Director; Joe Novotny, Chief Clerk; Rachel 

Racusen, Communications Director; Julie Radocchia, Senior Education Policy Advisor; Melissa Salmanowitz, Press Secretary; Margaret Young, Staff Assistant, Education; Mark Zuckerman, Staff 

Director; Stephanie Arras, Minority Legislative Assistant; James 

Bergeron, Minority Deputy Director of Education and Human Services Policy; Andrew Blasko, Minority Speech Writer and Communications Advisor; Robert Borden, Minority General Counsel; Cameron Coursen, Minority Assistant Communications Director; 

Kirsten Duncan, Minority Professional Staff Member; Amy Raaf 

Jones, Minority Professional Staff Member; Alexa Marrero, Minority Communications Director; Chad Miller, Minority Professional 

Staff; Susan Ross, Minority Director of Education and Human 

Services Policy; Mandy Schaumberg, Minority Education Counsel; 

Linda Stevens, Minority Chief Clerk/Assistant to the General 

Counsel; and Sally Stroup, Minority Staff Director. 
2 

Chairman MILLER [presiding]. We will come to order. 

As I came around the hall, I thought maybe we were giving away 

Springsteen tickets or something. I wasn’t sure what was going on, 

here. But we have our own star, with Secretary Duncan. 

Secretary, thank you for joining us today, to discuss President 

Obama’s agenda for transforming education in America. 

We think that we are in a unique moment in the history of this 

country. With all of the challenges that America is facing, I think 

that the president made a wise choice when he said that he wanted, after the stimulus, to rebuild the American economy through a 

new energy policy, education policy and health-care policy. 

This committee is involved in two out of three of those. I was encouraged this morning when I heard the chairman of the board of 

General Electric saying that if he was going to make one big bet 

for the future of innovation and technology in this country, and 

jobs here at home, it would be in energy. 

And he also made it very clear that if you are going to have that 

innovation and those contributions to the technological changes, we 

needed a well-educated workforce. We can no longer suffer the 

achievement gaps that we have in this country. We have worked 

hard to try to close them, but much more needs to be done. 

We can no longer afford to have only 70 percent of our highschool students graduate. These are nagging problems; and clearly, 

we have got to do all that we can. And Mr. McKeon has been a 

champion of this, to make college more affordable, and to deal with 

the cost of college. 

It is very difficult to talk about it at a time of recession, when 

state resources are crashing all over the country, but we have got 

to have more support from the states for our public institutions. 

I think both you and President Obama have clearly articulated 

that you see education as a basic civil right. And this is the civilrights issue of our generation. And I think that members will have 

many questions of you. 

But I think, clearly, your budget reflects these priorities by providing the resources to improve the early learning opportunities for 

our youngest students, so that they are school-ready, and to provide better coordination among those opportunities within the 

states—the articulation that you have given to the need for worldclass standards, common standards, in this country, to take us to 

a new place, both in curriculum and assessments—is very, very important. As is the idea that every child should have access to effective, qualified teachers, and that those teachers should enjoy and 

deserve a modern, professional workplace, where their talents, 

their time, their skills will be—and their success will be rewarded. 

And I think that these are very, very important ideas for this administration, and for our country, as we struggle to come out of 

this economic downturn, following the financial scandals, but we 

will. And we have got to emerge stronger in what will even be a 

more competitive and globalized economy and world. 

I think, with the commitment that you made for the $100 billion 

as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act sent a 

huge signal to the educators of this country, to families in this 

country, that you were, again, placing a bet on the ability of our 

education system to achieve the kind of success that parents want, 
3 

that students want, that teachers want and, certainly, we want as 

a society, and as an economy. 

I think you have captured the imagination and, maybe, the anticipation of many people in this country, and in the Congress, with 

your unprecedented Fund for the Race to the Top. I hope that you 

will set the bar very high for those who get to participate. I think 

you have something very valuable in terms of the incentives that 

you can provide, the leadership that you can provide, to truly take 

us to a different place, with respect to our expectations and the realization of what can be done in the American education system, 

led by states who are willing to take their education systems to the 

future, and stop standing pat on the status quo. 

So it is a great honor for me, but it is also with a great deal of 

excitement to welcome you to our committee, and to the members 

who will be playing an important role on both sides of the aisle. 

This is one of the more bipartisan committees in the House. We 

start out each and every time trying to be there. 

We don’t always agree. We don’t always end up that bipartisan— 

but we have tried, with Mr. McKeon, myself—when he was chair, 

when I am chair—to try to work it out and see how long we could 

go down that road. And we will continue to address the initiatives 

of this administration in that same fashion. 

Thank you for being here. 

And, now, I would like to recognize the senior Republican on our 

committee, Congressman McKeon, my colleague from California. 

[The statement of Mr. Miller follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, Chairman, Committee on 

Education and Labor 

Secretary Duncan, thank you for joining us here today to discuss President 

Obama’s agenda for transforming education in America. 

We are at a unique moment in history. 

Americans are facing unprecedented challenges. Workers are losing jobs, schools 

are facing devastating budget cuts, and families are losing ground. 

Fortunately, we have a President who believes that education is a critical component to a lasting economic recovery. 

With our economy in flux, he knows we must empower our nation’s schools, colleges and universities to prepare our next generation of leaders, entrepreneurs and 

innovators. 

He is committed to building the world-class education system our economy needs 

and our children deserve. 

He put us on the right track by putting Arne Duncan at the helm of our nation’s 

schools. 

Secretary Duncan is the right person, in the right position, at the right time. And 

he has his work is cut out for him. 

President Obama and Secretary Duncan have inherited an education system that 

is failing the needs of our students and our economy. 

We face the continuing challenge of closing the achievement gap that begins with 

our earliest learners. 

We used to be a world leader in graduation rates. Now we’ve fallen to 18th out 

of 24 industrialized nations. 

Only 70 percent of our students graduate on time with a regular diploma from 

high school. 

Not enough of our students are getting the support they need to go to college— 

many can’t afford it once they get there. 

The status quo isn’t working and it isn’t sustainable—not if we want to reclaim 

our leadership in this global economy. 

Both President Obama and Secretary Duncan have called education the civil 

rights issue of our generation. 

A good education is a basic civil right. 

Education has always held the potential to be the great equalizer in this country. 
4 

But it will require bold action to get us there. 

Part of what I think is unique about President Obama is he takes a comprehensive approach to education, from cradle to career. 

The President believes we have to improve early learning opportunities so our 

youngest learners can build a good foundation for success. 

He believes we can finally achieve the 21st century education system we’ve been 

striving for by significantly improving No Child Left Behind, while maintaining the 

law’s core goals and focus on accountability. 

He believes we must insist on world-class standards for all students, and ensure 

that every student has access to an effective, qualified teacher and that those teachers deserve a professional workplace where hard work and success are rewarded. 

He wants to improve our accountability system so it is fairer, and better reflects 

students’ learning. 

And he wants to regain our competitive footing. 

He has called on every American to commit to a year or more of higher education. 

To help get them there, he wants to expand access to college by increasing the Pell 

Grant scholarship and other forms of student aid by almost $100 billion over the 

next ten years. 

This will go a long way toward making sure that all qualified Americans who 

work hard and want to go to college can achieve this goal. 

This investment not only shows the President is serious about making education 

a part of our recovery, it also shows that this Administration is serious about driving reforms. 

They recognize that this investment gives us an opportunity to lay the groundwork for reforms that will be essential to any larger effort to improve our schools. 

In return for these dollars, they asked schools and districts to move the ball down 

the court in areas that are vital to the success of our children: getting excellent 

teachers into the neediest classrooms; improving the quality of assessments; and developing data systems that give us timely information on what’s happening in our 

schools. 

The plan also gives Secretary Duncan the tools to fuel innovative reforms in 

schools through his unprecedented Race to the Top Fund. I hope he will set the bar 

very high in order for states to access these funds. 

I am confident Secretary Duncan and President Obama know that to make the 

change our students need, you have to be willing to break some china. 

Today we’ll hear more from Secretary Duncan about the Obama administration’s 

education roadmap. 

The last time Secretary Duncan appeared before this committee, he was the CEO 

of Chicago’s Public Schools. 

His leadership there was impressive. 

What set him apart was his ability to work together, with any stakeholder, from 

any team, to do what’s best for students. 

That’s the most important barometer for success in the tasks before him. 

This will require real leadership and political will on all our parts. 

Secretary Duncan, I look forward to hearing your testimony, and learning more 

about how our committee can support your efforts to make college more affordable, 

expand access to quality early education, improve No Child Left Behind and build 

a stronger economy that gives all Americans the opportunity to get an excellent— 

and equal—education. 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you, Chairman Miller, and good morning. 

Good morning to you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you for appearing before this committee. I hope your testimony will be the start of a 

good, meaningful conversation today, about the future of education 

in America. I also hope this conversation can lead to common 

ground, one where both Democrats and Republicans can work together to improve our nation’s schools. 

But a good conversation usually involves two points of view. That 

is why I would like to take a moment to briefly outline the Republican education agenda. By putting everything on the table this 

way, perhaps we can reach that common ground together, and 

sooner. 

So, here is where Republicans stand. Our basic philosophy is 

this: Education decisions should be left to those who make them 
5 

best—parents, local school districts and the states. The federal government should play a limited, but helpful role in making those decisions. To that end, we stand for constant improvement and innovation in education. 

I know we have had several conversations already, and I am— 

I know that is right where you are. 

We also believe in the right of parents to choose the school or 

other educational options that best fits the needs of their children. 

And we demand results from our reform so the taxpayer dollars are 

not wasted. 

Mr. Secretary, judging by what I have heard from you and President Obama in recent months, there are some areas where we can 

work together. Charter schools are a good example. Both you and 

the president have expressed support for them as a tool to improve 

student achievement. We Republicans also support good charter 

schools. 

We hope to hear ideas from you today about how we can ensure 

that states are not limiting this option by placing arbitrary caps on 

how many charter schools can operate. 

I also believe we can work together on expanding pay-for-performance systems. We believe that teachers and principals should 

be rewarded for their success in improving academic achievement. 

But there are other areas where we are not in agreement at this 

time; areas where this administration has acted to protect the status quo at the expense of low-income students. 

The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program is a good example. 

This groundbreaking program has helped thousands of low-income 

students here in Washington attend the school of their choice, including Sidwell Friends, where the president’s children attend. 

However, instead of helping to save the program, the president 

recently signed a law that effectively phased it out. 

Your agency, Mr. Secretary, evoked—revoked scholarships that 

had been awarded to new students for the upcoming school year. 

I know you want to improve public schools for all children; so do 

I. But until that happens, we shouldn’t take away this critical lifeline. 

More than 7,000 D.C. residents have signed a petition imploring 

us to keep the program alive. Student loans are another area 

where we respectfully disagree with President Obama’s agenda. 

Members on both sides of the aisle are troubled by the president’s proposal to end the Federal Family Education, or FFEL, Program. So there are 1,646 financial-aid officials, and students, who 

have signed another petition, urging Congress to keep FFEL, and 

oppose the administration’s proposal. 

This program has been around for more than four decades. It has 

made the dream of a college education, and the quality of life that 

often comes with that degree, possible for millions. One of the reasons for this success is because the program can be tailored best 

to fit students’ needs, thanks to the private lenders, not-for-profits 

and state agencies that have all partnered with the federal government, colleges and universities, to serve students. 

If we follow the president’s plan and use only a direct-loan program, this would end the significant public-private partnership, 

and replace it with the federal government and its contractors. 
6 

There would be a one-size-fits-all Washington program for the more 

than 6,500 colleges and universities in America, whose diversity is 

the cornerstone of higher education in this country. 

Ending this public-private partnership also will cost more than 

30,000 jobs right off the bat, and could affect thousands more. That 

said, we are not against reforming our nation’s complex financialaid system. Some reforms can be made, but we think it is best to 

have a thoughtful and deliberate conversation with all the parties. 

Just this week, I heard from several small colleges that are very 

opposed to being forced to convert to direct loans. These colleges 

are concerned that their voices are not being heard in the rush to 

promote the Direct Loan Program. 

They have real concerns. And we should listen to the impact such 

a conversion will have on their students and institutions. That 

way, we can make some good reforms, while keeping what works 

in the program, for all our colleges and the students they serve. 

With that, I look forward to your remarks, and continuing this 

conversation. 

Here are the petitions I mentioned. We will be glad to get them 

over to your office. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

And I yield back. 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, Senior Republican 

Member, Committee on Education and Labor 

Thank you, Chairman Miller and good morning. 

And good morning to you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you for appearing before this 

committee. I hope your testimony will be the start of a good, meaningful conversation today about the future of education in America. 

I also hope this conversation can lead to common ground, one where both Democrats and Republicans can work together to improve our nation’s schools. 

But a good conversation usually involves two points of view. 

That’s why I would like to take a moment to briefly outline the Republican education agenda. 

By putting everything ‘‘on the table’’ this way, perhaps we can reach that common 

ground together sooner. So here’s where Republicans stand... 

Our basic philosophy is this: Education decisions should be left to those who make 

them best—parents, local school districts, and the states. 

The federal government should play a limited, but helpful, role in making those 

decisions. 

To that end, we stand for constant improvement and innovation in education. 

We also believe in the right of parents to choose the school, or other educational 

options, that best fits the needs of their children. 

And we demand results from our reforms, so that taxpayer dollars are not wasted. 

Mr. Secretary, judging by what I’ve heard from you and President Obama in recent months, there are some areas where we can work together. 

Charter schools are a good example. Both you and the President have expressed 

support for them as a tool to improve student achievement. 

We Republicans also support charter schools. We hope to hear ideas from you 

today about how we can ensure that states are not limiting this option by placing 

arbitrary caps on how many charter schools can operate. 

I also believe we can work together on expanding pay-for-performance systems. 

We believe that teachers and principals should be rewarded for their success in improving academic achievement. 

But there are other areas where we are not in agreement at this time—areas 

where the Administration has acted to protect the status quo at the expense of lowincome students. 

The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program is a good example. This groundbreaking program has helped thousands of low-income students here in Washington attend the school of their choice—including Sidwell Friends, where the President’s 

children attend. 
7 

However, instead of helping to save the program, the President recently signed 

a law that effectively phased it out. 

Your agency, Mr. Secretary, revoked scholarships that had been awarded to new 

students for the upcoming school year. 

I know you want to improve public schools for all children. So do I. But until that 

happens, we shouldn’t take away this critical lifeline. More than 7,000 D.C. residents have signed this petition [hold up petition] imploring us to keep the program 

alive. 

Student loans are another area where we respectfully disagree with President 

Obama’s agenda. 

Members on both sides of the aisle are troubled by the President’s proposal to end 

the Federal Family Education Loan—or FFEL—program. 

So are 1,646 financial aid officials and students who have signed another petition 

urging Congress to keep FFEL and oppose the Administration’s proposal. 

This program has been around for more than four decades. It has made the dream 

of a college education—and the quality of life that often comes with that degree— 

possible for millions. 

One of the reasons for this success is because the program can be tailored to best 

fit students’ needs, thanks to the private lenders, not-for-profits and state agencies 

that have all partnered with the federal government, colleges and universities to 

serve students. 

If we follow the President’s plan and use only a direct loan program, this would 

end the significant public-private partnership and replace it with the federal government and its contractors. 

There would be a one-size-fits-all Washington program for the more than 6,500 

colleges and universities in America whose diversity is the cornerstone of higher 

education in this country. 

Ending this public-private partnership also will cost more than 30,000 jobs right 

off the bat—and could affect thousands more. 

That said, we are not against reforming our nation’s complex financial aid system. 

Some reforms can be made. But we think it’s best to have a thoughtful and deliberate conversation with all the parties. 

Just this week I heard from several small colleges that are very opposed to being 

forced to convert to direct loans. These colleges are concerned that their voices are 

not being heard in the rush to promote the direct loan program. 

They have real concerns and we should listen to the impact such a conversion will 

have on their students and institutions. 

That way, we can make some good reforms while keeping what works in the program for all our colleges and the students they serve. 

With that, I look forward to your remarks and continuing this conversation. 

Thank you, Chairman Miller. I yield back. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. 

Now, I would like to officially introduce Arne Duncan, who was 

nominated to be Secretary of Education by President Obama, and 

was confirmed by the Senate on January 20, 2009. 

Prior to his appointment as secretary of education, Mr. Duncan 

served as the chief executive officer of the Chicago Public Schools, 

a position which he was appointed to by Mayor Richard Daley from 

June 2001 to December 2008. 

In his position, he became the longest-serving big-city education 

superintendent in the country. In his role as CEO, Mr. Duncan was 

able to raise the educational standards and performance to improve 

teacher and principal quality, and increase learning options. 

He helped unite education reformers and bring together education stakeholders from across the spectrum to raise the bar in 

Chicago’s public schools. He is a dynamic leader, who has an appreciation for real reform, ending the status quo. He is a true disrupter. 

Mr. Secretary, welcome to the committee. 

Under the rules of the committee, we generally allow witnesses 

5 minutes. You are the only witness. You are the Secretary of Edu-
8 

cation. And we want you to proceed in the manner in which you 

are most comfortable to get across to the committee, the points you 

want to make. 

And, then, we will have questions from the members of the committee, as long as the time lasts. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ARNE DUNCAN, SECRETARY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Secretary DUNCAN. Thank you so much, Chairman Miller, for 

your extraordinary leadership, to Representative McKeon, and than 

you so much for your hard work. I feel very, very lucky to have 

leadership on both sides of the aisle who is passionate, who is absolutely committed to helping us improve. And I look forward to 

working with all of you to help take education in our country to an 

entirely different level. 

And, Chairman Miller, just as you said—— 

Chairman MILLER. I think if we can get you to pull the microphone closer, I see some heads nodding in the back of the room a 

little bit. 

Secretary DUNCAN. I will pull it a little closer in. 

Chairman Miller, just on a personal level, this transition to 

Washington—you have been just an absolute champion—someone 

I have learned a tremendous amount from. And I want to thank 

you for your leadership and your thoughtfulness, and your heart 

and passion for kids around the country. 

I want to begin by just expressing my great concern for the very 

disturbing and troubling information that came out of your hearing 

yesterday, on restraints and seclusion, and where you see children 

being hurt—children’s safety has to be our number-one concern, before we begin to think about educating them and doing other 

things. 

And so this is one where I am going to ask state school chiefs 

from around the country to report to me what their plans are to 

make sure that student safety is taken care of. And as we go into 

the summer and prepare for next school year, I want to make sure 

as we go into the next school year, that every state has a real, clear 

plan as to how to do this in a way that makes sense and doesn’t 

jeopardize—doesn’t endanger children. 

As you know, I come from Chicago. And in Illinois—in, I think, 

your testimony yesterday, Illinois has what I think is a very effective plan that prohibits the use of seclusion and restraint for punishment. It places time limits on this and requires monitoring and 

communication. It requires specific documentation of each incident—the significant training. And, because of all that, you have 

seen a dramatic reduction in the number of these incidents. 

There is also, on our Web site, information on positive behavioral 

interventions and support to www.pbis.org, which I think is an invaluable resource. And so I am going to be working with the state 

school chiefs, as we go into next school year, to make sure that, 

across the country, we are thoughtful, and we are not doing anything that endangers children or hurts or put them in any kind of 

jeopardy. So we are going to work very hard. And I appreciate—— 

Chairman MILLER. Well, thank you for that. 
9 

I know Mr. McKeon and I discussed this yesterday. And we 

would love to see the leadership come from the states. And if you 

could help coordinate that, that would really be helpful. Thank you. 

Secretary DUNCAN. So we will do whatever we can, there. That 

is a very, very important issue. 

And, again, I was deeply disturbed by some of the testimony 

coming out of yesterday’s hearing. 

It is my pleasure to share with you President Obama’s plan for 

American education. It is a comprehensive plan that meets the 

educational needs of our youngest citizens, from cradle to career. 

If we are going to be successful in rebuilding our economy, our 

early childhood programs need to prepare our youngest children for 

kindergarten, so they are ready to start reading and learning. 

Our K-to-12 schools need to make sure our students have all of 

the academic knowledge and skills they need to enter college or the 

workforce. And our higher-education system needs to offer whatever advanced learning students need to be successful in a career, 

whether they will become a plumber, a teacher or a business executive. 

As federal policymakers, we need to improve preparation for college, and expand college access and completion by increasing financial aid so that students of all income levels can pay for college 

without taking on a mountain of debt. 

I am proud to work for a president who has created a comprehensive agenda that addresses the needs at every level of our 

educational system, from expanding access to high-quality early 

childhood programs, to improving the rigor of the academic programs in our K-to-12 schools, to making college more affordable 

and accessible. 

We have tried to get off to a fast start, here. 

Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, we have 

laid the groundwork for reform on the K-to-12 level, and made an 

early down payment on expanding access to early childhood education, and increasing student aid for college students. 

The law made available almost $100 billion for education. And 

I want to thank all of you for your generosity and support. That 

money will help prevent hundreds of thousands of layoffs, fill holes 

in state and local budgets, and provide financial aid to college students. 

The money is needed to help our economy in the short term, but 

very important reform efforts, driven by these school—these 

funds—will be the key to our long-term economic success. 

Under the state fiscal Stabilization Fund, states will receive 

$48.6 billion to supplement their own budgets during these difficult 

economic times. The Recovery Act says that states must spend 

most of that funding on education; $39.8 billion of that should go 

to schools. 

And I want to assure everyone here that I will be scrutinizing 

how states spend the stabilization money to make sure they are focused on education. 

I have heard that some states are thinking about using the stabilization money to maintain their rainy-day funds, and that others 

may rely on the stabilization grants to pay for tax cuts, instead of 

investing in reforms. 
10 

Let me be clear: I will do everything in my power to reject any 

schemes that would subvert the intended purpose of the Recovery 

Act, which is to help schools through the economic downturn, and 

push reform, thereby ensuring our economic prosperity in the future. 

When reviewing applications for the Race to the Top Fund, we 

plan to consider whether a state use their stabilization money to 

aggressively push reforms. In addition to helping states solve their 

budget problems, the Stabilization Fund lays out a path to reform. 

To receive their money, states must make four commitments that 

are absolutely essential to reforming our K-to-12 schools. First, 

they will improve the effectiveness of teachers, and will work to 

make sure that the best teachers are in the schools that need them 

the most. 

Secondly, they promise to improve the quality of their academic 

standards so that they lead students down a path that prepares 

them for college and the workforce, and global competitiveness. 

These standards need to be aligned with strong assessments. In addition, states must work to ensure that these assessments accurately measure the achievement of English-language learners and 

students with disabilities. 

Third, states must commit to fixing their lowest-performing 

schools. 

And, finally, states must build data systems that can track student performance from one year to the next, from one school to another, so that those students and their parents will know when 

they are making progress, and when they need extra attention. 

This information also must be put in the hands of educators so 

they can use it on a real-time basis, to improve instruction. Right 

now, according to the Data Quality Campaign, DQC, Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana and Utah are the only states 

that reported to have comprehensive data systems meeting the 

basic elements of a good system. 

With $250 million in the stimulus, and another $65 million in 

our annual budget for fiscal year 2009, and again in fiscal year 

2010, we expect these numbers to continue to grow, which is absolutely vital to reform. In addition, the stabilization money, the Recovery Act, as you talked about, gave us $5 billion to spur innovation in states and in districts. 

Thorough the Race to the Top Fund, we will be awarding $4.35 

billion in competitive grants to states built around the four pillars 

of reform, outlined in the Stabilization Fund. Through the What 

Works and Innovations Fund, we will also be awarding $650 million in competitive grants to districts and non-profit organizations 

to scale-up successful programs and evaluate promising practices. 

And I promise you, Mr. Chairman, we will have a very high bar. 

We want to invest in what works—take that to scale. The goal here 

is not to perpetuate the status quo. It is really to take education 

to an entirely different level; to both raise the bar and to close the 

achievement gap. 

Our fiscal year 2010 budget will expand our commitment to reforms in several important ways, addressing the needs from early 

childhood through K-to-12 education. 
11 

Under the Title I Program, we will provide $1.5 billion for the 

School Improvement Program. This money is vital for helping 

states and districts address problems in schools that are in the 

most trouble. 

We already have $3 billion for this program from the Recovery 

Act, and another $545 million from fiscal year 2009. By adding $1.5 

billion in fiscal year 2010, we have more than $5 billion to address 

the problems of our lowest-performing schools. 

I would like to set a goal to turnaround, over time, $1,000 lowperforming schools each year. I do not want to invest in the status 

quo. For children, families and communities that have been poorly 

served for too long, we must act with a sense of urgency. We cannot 

wait because they cannot wait. 

When we think about only 2,000 schools in this country producing 50 percent of our nation’s dropouts and 75 percent of our 

minority-children dropouts, we have a real challenge there. And we 

have a real opportunity, with resources on the table, and with courage and political will, to challenge that to work with those dropout 

factories—to work with their feeder middle schools and elementary 

schools—to fundamentally stop those dropout factories, those dropout pipelines, and do something dramatically better for those children in communities, that I would argue, in many places, have 

been underserved not for a couple years, but for decades. 

And everyone in this room knows that when children drop out 

today, they are basically condemned to poverty and to social failure. There are no good jobs out there for a high-school dropout. 

And we have to act now to make sure we do something better for 

those children in those communities. 

I want states and districts to take bold action that will lead directly to the improvement in student learning. I want local leaders 

to find those change agents who can fix these schools. I want them 

to provide incentives for the best teachers and the best principals 

to take on the challenge of teaching in these schools. And, where 

appropriate, I want them to create partnerships with charter-school 

operators with a track record for success. 

I want superintendents to be aggressive in taking the difficult 

step of shutting down a failing school, and replacing it with one 

they know will work. 

We have proposed a $52 million increase in funding to develop 

and expand successful charter schools. Many of you have heard me 

say that I believe education is the civil-rights issue of our time. I 

absolutely believe every child is entitled to a high-quality education. And I will work closely with the Office of Civil Rights to 

make sure that we properly review compliance in all programs and 

policymaking. 

The fiscal year 2010 budget starts new programs and expands 

existing ones to address our priorities in early childhood education 

and literacy. 

We will create the $300 million Early Learning Challenge Fund 

that will award grants to help states set up the support and services necessary to build quality early childhood education. We will provide $500 million in grants through Title I to help 

districts use their Title I money to establish and expand the preschool programs. We will expand the Striving Readers Program 
12 

from a small $35 million program focused on middle school and 

high schools, to a $370 million program that addresses the reading 

needs of children in elementary schools as well. 

The program will take a comprehensive approach to reading instruction, ensuring that students develop the basic skills, as well 

as the reading comprehensive that is so vital to their success in 

high school and beyond. 

We will also continue our focus on promoting the teaching profession. Great teachers and great teaching matters tremendously. 

With $517 million in our fiscal year 2010 budget, we will continue and expand our support for local efforts, under the Teacher 

Incentive Fund to develop comprehensive strategies for recruiting, 

preparing, rewarding and retaining great teachers. 

We also request $10 million to start to plan new Promise Neighborhoods, modeled on the highly successful Harlem Children’s 

Zone. 

We are committed to acting on evidence. And we request $72 million more for the Institute for Education Sciences, so we can identify what works based on rigorous research, invest more in what 

works, and stop spending money on ineffective programs. 

Our agenda from early childhood through 12th grade is focused 

on helping states do the right thing. And that is appropriate because states are responsible for establishing systems of education 

through the 12th grade. It is our role to make it a national priority 

to reform schools and to help states and districts do just that. 

For more than 40 years, the federal government has played a 

leading role in helping students pay for college. Continuing this 

vital role, the total amount of aid for students has increased by $32 

billion since President Obama has taken office. 

By subsidizing loans, and by providing work study programs and, 

most importantly, giving Pell Grants to low-income students, the 

federal government is fulfilling the dreams of students who want 

to be able to go to college, but might not have the resources to pay 

for it. 

President Obama has set an ambitious goal that, by 2020, the 

United States, once again, will have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. He fully understands that we have to 

educate our way to a better economy. 

That is an achievable goal. But to hit it, we have to make college 

affordable. 

The Recovery Act made an important down payment on our 

plans to expand student aid. The ARRA Act provided $17.1 billion 

so we could raise the maximum Pell award from $4,731 to $5,350. 

We also added $200 million to the Work Study Program, providing 

colleges and universities some additional money to provide jobs to 

students to help with their college and their living expenses. 

In our fiscal year 2010 budget, we want to make three important 

and permanent changes to ensure students have access to student 

aid and loans. The first thing it would do is to move the Pell Grant 

Program from a discretionary program into a mandatory appropriated entitlement. 

This approach will provide more certainty to students and families applying for student aid, about the aid that is available to 
13 

them. In addition, the Pell amounts will grow annually, at rate 

higher than inflation, so it keeps up with rising college costs. 

The second thing this budget does is address the problems with 

the FFEL Program. I think we all agree that the FFEL structure 

is broken and on life-support now, and that federal student-loan 

programs are in need of a dependable, cost-effective way of providing college-bound students and their families with the resources 

they need to meet the growing costs of post-secondary education. 

The Direct Lending Program is the best way to do that. Through 

it, we will be able to leverage the government’s lower costs to fund, 

to finance and originate student loans, and provide private-sector 

expertise to service those loans. 

The president’s proposal provides a comprehensive and reliable solution for today’s students, while saving taxpayers over $4 billion 

a year. It will be more stable and efficient, reducing risks for students and lowering costs for taxpayers. 

The third thing we are doing is boosting the Perkins Loan Pro- gram from $1 billion to $6 billion per year. The number of students 

served will rise from $500,000 to $2.7 million. And the number of 

schools that can participate in the program will increase from 1,800 

to 4,400, which also means that we can serve more students. 

Also, to keep college affordable for our Perkins proposal—allocates funds to schools based on their role in keeping tuitions down, 

and providing grant aid to needy students. This further builds 

upon Congress’ recent mandate to create watch lists of colleges 

with high or excessive increases in tuition. 

In closing, I would like to remind you of one thing the president 

said when he addressed Congress in February. He said, ‘‘In a global economy, where the most valuable skill you can sell is your 

knowledge, a good education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity; it is the prerequisite.’’ 

Thank you so much for your support so far in assuring that our 

children and our young adults have the education they need to ensure they enter the workforce with the knowledge and skills they 

need to be successful, and to help rebuild our economy. 

Thank you so much. 

[The statement of Secretary Duncan follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Arne Duncan, Secretary, 

U.S. Department of Education 

Thank you Chairman Miller, Representative McKeon, and all the members of the 

committee for the invitation to be here today. It is my pleasure to share with you 

President Obama’s plan for American education. It is a comprehensive plan that 

meets the educational needs of our youngest citizens from cradle to career. If we 

are going to be successful in rebuilding our economy, our early childhood programs 

need to prepare our youngest children for kindergarten so they’re ready to start 

reading and learning, our K-12 schools need to make sure our students have all of 

the academic knowledge and skills that they need to enter college or the workforce, 

and our higher education system needs to offer whatever advanced learning students need to be successful in a career, whether they will become a plumber, a 

teacher, or a business executive. As federal policymakers, we need to improve preparation for college and expand college access and completion by increasing financial 

aid so that students of all income levels can pay for college without taking on a 

mountain of debt. 

I’m proud to work for a President who has created a comprehensive agenda that 

addresses the needs at every level of our educational system, from expanding access 

to high-quality early childhood programs to improving the rigor of the academic programs in our K-12 schools to making college more affordable and accessible. 
14 

We have gotten off to a fast start. Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, we have laid the groundwork for reform on the K-12 level and made an 

early down payment on expanding access to early childhood education and increasing student aid for college students. The law made available almost $100 billion for 

education. That money will help prevent layoffs, fill holes in state and local budgets, 

and provide financial aid to college students. The money is needed to help our economy in the short term, but reforms efforts driven by these funds will be the key 

to our long-term economic success. 

Under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, states will receive $48.6 billion to supplement their own budgets during these difficult economic times. The Recovery Act 

says that states must spend most of that funding on education. $39.8 billion of that 

should go to schools. 

I want to assure you that I will be scrutinizing how states spend their stabilization money to make sure they are focused on education. I have heard that some 

states plan to use their stabilization money so as to maintain their rainy day fund 

and that others may rely on their stabilization grants to pay for tax cuts instead 

of investing in reforms. I will do everything in my power to reject any schemes that 

would subvert the intended purpose of the Recovery Act, which is to help schools 

through the economic downturn and push reform, thereby ensuring our economic 

prosperity in the future. When reviewing applications for the Race to the Top Fund, 

we plan to consider whether a state used their stabilization money to aggressively 

push reforms. 

In addition to helping states solve their budget problems, the stabilization fund 

lays out a path to reform. To receive their money, states must make four commitments that are essential to reforming our K-12 schools. They will improve the effectiveness of teachers and make sure the best teachers are in the schools that need 

them the most. They will promise to improve the quality of their academic standards so that they lead students down a path that prepares them for college and the 

workforce and global competitiveness. These standards need to be aligned with 

strong assessments. In addition, states must work to ensure that these assessments 

accurately measure the achievement of English language learners and students with 

disabilities. 

Under the third assurance, states must commit to fixing their lowest-performing 

schools. Finally, states must build data systems that can track student performance 

from one year to the next, from one school to another, so that those students and 

their parents know when they are making progress and when they need extra attention. This information must also be put in the hands of educators so they can use 

it to improve instruction. Right now, according to the Data Quality Campaign 

(DQC), Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, and Utah are the only 

states that are reporting to have comprehensive data systems meeting the basic elements of a good system. With $250 million in the stimulus and another $65 million 

in our annual budget for fiscal year 2009 and again in fiscal year 2010, we expect 

these numbers to continue to grow, which is vital for reform. 

In addition to the stabilization money, the Recovery Act gave us $5 billion to spur 

innovation in states and districts. Through the Race to the Top Fund, we will be 

awarding $4.35 billion in competitive grants to states built around the four pillars 

of reform outlined in the stabilization fund. Through the What Works and Innovation Fund, we also will be awarding $650 million in competitive grants to districts 

and non-profit organizations to scale up successful programs and evaluate promising 

practices. 

Our fiscal year 2010 budget will expand our commitment to reforms in several 

important ways, addressing the needs from early childhood through K-12 education. 

Under the Title I program, we will provide $1.5 billion for the School Improvement program. This money is vital for helping states and districts address problems 

in schools in the most trouble. We already have $3 billion for this program from 

the Recovery Act and another $545 million from fiscal year 2009. By adding $1.5 

billion in fiscal year 2010, we’ll have more than $5 billion to address the problems 

of our lowest-performing schools. I’d like to set a goal to turn around 1,000 low-performing schools a year for each of the next five years. I don’t want to invest in the 

status quo. I want states and districts to take bold actions that will lead directly 

to the improvement in student learning. I want local leaders to find change agents 

who can fix these schools. I want them to provide incentives for their best teachers 

to take on the challenge of teaching in these schools. And where appropriate, I want 

them to create partnerships with charter school operators with a track record of success. I want superintendents to be aggressive in taking the difficult step of shutting 

down a failing school and replacing it with one they know will work. We’ve proposed 

a $52 million increase in funding to develop and expand successful charter schools. 
15 

Many of you have heard me say that I believe education is the civil rights issue 

of our time. I truly believe every child is entitled to a high-quality education. I will 

work closely with the Office of Civil Rights to make sure that we properly review 

compliance in all programs and policymaking. 

The fiscal year 2010 budget starts new programs and expands existing ones to address our priorities in early childhood education and literacy. We will create the 

$300 million Early Learning Challenge Fund that will award grants to help states 

set up the support and services necessary to build quality early childhood education. 

We will provide $500 million in grants through Title I to help districts use their 

Title I money to establish and expand preschool programs. We will expand the 

Striving Readers program from a small $35 million program focused on middle 

school and high schools to a $370 million program that addresses the reading needs 

of children in elementary schools as well. The program will take a comprehensive 

approach to reading instruction, ensuring that students develop the basic skills as 

well as the reading comprehension that is so vital to their success in high school 

and beyond. 

We also continue our focus on promoting the teaching profession. With $517 million in our fiscal year 2010 budget, we will continue and expand our support for 

local efforts under the Teacher Incentive Fund to develop comprehensive strategies 

for recruiting, preparing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers. We also request $10 million to plan new Promise Neighborhoods, modeled on the successful 

Harlem Children’s Zone. We are committed to acting on the evidence. And we request $72 million more for the Institute for Education Sciences, so we can identify 

what works based on rigorous research. 

Our agenda from early childhood through 12th grade is focused on helping states 

do the right thing. And that’s appropriate because States are responsible for establishing systems of education through the 12th grade. It’s our role to make it a national priority to reform schools and help states and districts do that. 

For more than 40 years, the federal government has played a leading role in helping students pay for college. Continuing this vital role, the total amount of aid for 

students has increased by $32 billion since President Obama has taken office. By 

subsidizing loans and by providing work-study programs and, most importantly, giving Pell Grants to low-income students, the federal government is fulfilling the 

dreams of students who want to go to college but might not be able to pay for it. 

President Obama has set a goal that, by 2020, the United States once again will 

have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. That’s an achievable 

goal but, to do that, we have to make college affordable. 

The Recovery Act made an important down-payment on our plans to expand student aid. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided $17.1 billion so 

we could raise the maximum Pell award from $4,731 to $5,350. It also added $200 

million to the Work-Study program, providing colleges and universities with additional money to provide jobs to students to help with their college and living expenses. 

In our fiscal year 2010 budget, we make three important and permanent changes 

to ensure students have access to student aid and loans. The first thing it will do 

is move the Pell Grant program from a discretionary program into a mandatory, appropriated entitlement. This approach will provide more certainty to students and 

families applying for student aid about the aid that’s available to them. In addition, 

the Pell Grant amounts will grow annually at a rate higher than inflation so that 

it keeps up with rising college costs. 

The second thing this budget does is address the problems with the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program. I think we can all agree that the FFEL structure is broken and the federal student loan programs are in need of a dependable, 

cost-effective way of providing college-bound students and their families with the resources they need to meet the growing cost of postsecondary education. The direct 

lending program is the best way to do that. Through it, we are able to leverage the 

government’s lower cost of funds to finance and originate student loans and privatesector expertise to service the loans. The President’s proposal provides a comprehensive and reliable solution for today’s students while saving taxpayers over $4 billion 

a year. It will be more stable and efficient—reducing risk for students and lowering 

costs for taxpayers. 

The third thing we are doing is boosting the Perkins loan program from $1 billion 

to $6 billion per year. The number of students served will rise from 500,000 to 2.7 

million—and the number of schools that can participate in the program will increase 

from 1,800 to 4,400, which also means that we will serve more students. Also, to 

help keep college affordable our Perkins proposal allocates funds to schools based 

on their role in keeping tuition down and providing grant aid to needy students. 
16 

This further builds upon Congress’ recent mandate to create watch lists of colleges 

with high or excessive increases in tuition. 

In closing, I’d like to remind you of one thing the President said when he addressed Congress in February. ‘‘In a global economy where the most valuable skill 

you can sell is your knowledge, a good education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity—it is a prerequisite.’’ 

Thank you for your support so far in ensuring that our children and young adults 

have the education they need to ensure they enter the workforce with the knowledge 

and skills they need to be successful and to help rebuild our economy. 

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

review of your priorities, and of the budget. Thank you for, again, 

reiterating your goals and standards for the Fund for the Race to 

the Top. The action of the Congress to give a single secretary $5 

billion in discretionary money is an amazing act for the Congress. 

But I think it is also a vote of confidence in you. 

I think that many of the members of this committee supported 

that effort, because they were here when you and Michelle Rhee 

and Joel Klein and Beverly Hall, from Atlanta, came and testified 

about the results that many of you had achieved—the possibilities 

that you saw for the improved outcomes, the achievement of our 

students in the various efforts that all of you had made, within 

large, complicated districts, but to provide various alternatives for 

students and for teachers. 

I would, again, just say that when you put $5 billion on the table 

in Washington, D.C., there is no shortage of people who, all of a 

sudden, have a renewed interest in that agenda, whatever it is. 

And I would just hope that you would be selective. I think that 

we have got to have a clear understanding. And it is very clear that 

there are governors and large districts that do want to go to the 

future. They do want to change the manner in which education has 

been delivered. They do want a different set of outcomes. And 

many of them have demonstrated that, in fact, they can do that. 

So I would just say that I think it would be better to have fewer 

entities doing more because, in fact, they can be the pathway and 

the beacon to other districts who still think this is too difficult to 

do, or too politically complicated to do; but the fact is, the students 

of this country are entitled to that. 

So I am not sure that everybody should be able to participate 

just because there is so much money. I think they should be able 

to participate because they have demonstrated that they are prepared to make the difficult, tough choices that are starting to show 

results all over this country in charter schools and regular public 

schools, in large districts and small districts, and rural areas, with 

the exact population that we are so terribly concerned about, in 

terms of the achievement gap, and whether or not they will have 

a full opportunity to participate in American society. 

Those results that you achieved in a number of settings in Chicago cannot be ignored any longer. They are possible. They are 

here for those who want to seek them out. So I think having the 

willingness and the evidence of the capacity for those who participate in the Race to the Top Fund—that they have got to be able 

to demonstrate that, before they are allowed. That is my thinking 

on that. 
17 

I also want to commend you for the urgency that you are putting 

behind the effort to change our high schools, specifically those described as dropout factories. We now know which schools provide 

the dramatic number of dropouts. We now know many of the middle schools that contribute to that population, and the ability and 

the research that is available to tell us that we can change many 

of those outcomes by being engaged with those students earlier on. 

We cannot make the decisions about fighting dropouts in the 

10th grade. There is just no evidence that that works. The effort 

around the high-school initiatives that have been proposed has 

been bipartisan in this committee. I think we are ready to move 

to make the changes that are necessary so that we can effectively 

change the outcomes for these students, and the performance of 

these schools. So we look forward to working with you on that. 

I am also very encouraged by the budget submission on behalf 

of the Teacher Incentive Fund. This was started by the past administration. I am not quite sure how they got it started, but they got 

it started. It is not without controversy, but I think it is yielding 

results for willing school districts, with their teachers, with their 

unions, with other organizations—community organizations, nonprofit—who really want to change the workplace, to change the opportunities for teachers, and to change the outcomes. 

It was threatened to be zeroed-out quite often. Fortunately, it 

wasn’t. And I think that the increase that you are providing there 

will serve teachers and school districts and students in a very positive way. 

Others will have more to say on this. But, again, I am also encouraged by the increase in support for charter schools. I think 

that is very important. Again, much of the evidence—many of the 

outcomes that we see that are improving, are coming from that 

community. And they should be encouraged. And we should do 

what we can—the best we can—to not have states throw up artificial barriers to their creation or to their expansion, to the success, 

as long as they are able to provide the results that we expect from 

them. 

So thank you very, very much for your testimony. I am not going 

to ask you questions. I am going to try to move this along. 

And I am going to recognize Mr. McKeon for questions. 

But thank you for the submissions. And thank you for the priorities you chose in the president’s budget. 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have several questions. 

Mr. Secretary, you said you would like to set a goal to turn 

around 1,000 low-performing schools a year, for each of the next 5 

years. And I commend you for that. I understand you had some 

success with this in Chicago. How did you work with the teachers’ 

unions in this effort? How can a district that wants to close lowperforming schools and reopen them with a new instructional team 

do that in light of collective bargaining agreements, and other regulations? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Let me start with sort of a broader statement 

of how I view schools. 

And I see schools, generally, in three different buckets. You have 

a set of very high-performing schools, district schools, neighborhood 
18 

schools, magnet schools, charter schools, where we have great results. We have long waiting lists. And I think all of us need to be 

in the business of replicating those schools, creating more of those 

kinds of options. 

We have a set of schools in the middle that are maybe not performing where you would like them to be, that are improving each 

year. And we need to continue to invest in those, and continue to 

help them grow and provide more resources and more professional 

development, and help them on their path towards excellence. 

However, as a country—and I think we have about 95,000 

schools in the country. Let us round it off to 100,000. If we just 

took the bottom 1 percent—and I don’t think we could do this in 

the first year. We would have to work up to this. But if we took 

the bottom 1 percent of those schools each year, and fundamentally 

change them, fundamentally challenge the status quo—and, again, 

in the vast majority of these cases, what most troubles me is these 

schools have not been at the bottom for a year or 2 years. It has 

often been for 10, 20, 30 years—literally, decades. 

And when we, as educators, aren’t helping students to be successful, we become part of the problem. So what you do—and this 

is tough work. This is hard. This is controversial. This is the ultimate in challenging the status quo. But when you have schools 

where the vast majority of students are dropping out—and even 

districts—and just to take a moment—the previous week, I was in 

Detroit. 

Detroit, for the city, has approximately a 75 percent dropout 

rate. It is an absolutely staggering number. You know, two out of 

three, three out of four—however you want to define it—of every, 

you know, third grader, fifth grader, ninth grader—will never graduate from those schools. 

Mr. MCKEON. Mr. Secretary, my time is limited. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Oh, I am sorry. 

Mr. MCKEON. So how did you work with unions, and how do you 

deal with the collective bargaining agreements—— 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. 

Mr. MCKEON [continuing]. And regulations, to accomplish this? 

Secretary DUNCAN. It was tough work, with the unions. The 

unions weren’t always supportive of this. But this is not just about 

coming back with charter schools. And we came back with better 

staff. 

Actually, in every single case, that was union staff. Those are 

union teachers. And so it is not about what the talent pool is. It 

is about saying, ‘‘Let us stop investing—more money is not always 

the answer.’’ Investing in something that is broken—sometimes you 

have to start fresh, and you have to come in there—and there are 

great, great teachers and principals who want a chance to make a 

difference, who want to go to the toughest of communities. They 

just have to feel—they have to have a chance to be successful. 

So what do you need? You need a great principal. You need a 

team of teachers—if you send two teachers into a dysfunctional situation, they will get overwhelmed. If you send a whole team of 

folks in there together, and a chance to build a culture from 

scratch—you have extraordinarily committed, dynamic teachers 

and principals who want to take on this work. So the talent pool, 
19 

I am absolutely convinced, is there. And we have to create those 

kinds of opportunities. 

Mr. MCKEON. I hope we are able to help you to accomplish that. 

Mr. Secretary, your budget creates a new program, targeted toward helping students in elementary schools learn to read. I heard 

that your staff said that the rationale for creating a new reading 

program was that there was no longer a consensus on how to teach 

children to read. 

That is a surprise to me. I would think it is a surprise to the 

folks at the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development, and on the National Reading Panel. 

Do you believe that teaching students the essential tenets of 

reading as laid out in the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act, and by the National Reading Panel, are no longer valid? 

Secretary DUNCAN. No. 

I think we need a balanced, comprehensive approach. And this 

funding and this commitment is to absolutely make sure that every 

child gets off to a great start. 

Mr. MCKEON. We talked a little bit about this yesterday: After 

teaching reading for as many years as we have been teaching, we 

should have a knowledge of how to do it. 

President Obama has called charter schools one of the places 

where innovation occurs. And he has called on the states to lift 

caps on the number of charter schools. Since it is clear that the 

presidency’s charter school is playing an important role in turning 

around poor-performing schools, how do you plan on convincing 

states to lift caps on these schools? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Well, there are a number of different opportunities we have, both in terms of carrots and sticks. But one of 

the things that Chairman Miller talked about is we, in this—we 

haven’t issued it yet. The RFP doesn’t exist, but we created a request for proposals around the rates of top funds—one of the questions we are going to be asking—we are going to ask a series of 

questions around charter schools. 

And one of the questions we are going to ask is, ‘‘Does your state 

have charter caps?’’ 

Mr. MCKEON. And my final question: Your budget proposes 

major changes to the Perkins Loan Program, transforming it into 

a tool to encourage colleges to control costs. It reminds me of a proposal I offered several years ago, to use campus-based aid programs, including Perkins, to achieve that same goal of holding 

down costs. 

Unfortunately, my plan was rejected by the higher-education 

community. I hope you have better luck than I did. And, to that 

end, I have two specific questions. 

First, will all sectors, including proprietary, be eligible for this 

program? And, second, can you share some specifics about how this 

will work, how you think it will bring costs down, and what other 

plans you may have to get colleges to control their costs? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. 

Proprietary, I think, will be eligible. Let me check that. We want 

to make sure that we are doing everything we can to push folks 

in the right direction. And I think we have an opportunity to do 

that. 
20 

I will add what—I think things have really changed now. Students and parents have more options than they have ever had. And 

where you see costs escalating, you know, exponentially way higher 

than the rate of inflation, parents and students are going to vote 

with their feet. And I think there is going to be a real market correction here. 

And you are seeing other universities go the opposite way—go to 

3-year programs, rather than 4—go to no-frills, low-cost options. 

And so we are going to put whatever pressure we can on it. 

But our parents and our student are very smart. They have thousands of options. And where costs are just escalating, you are going 

to see, particularly in this economic climate—I am convinced you 

are going to see those universities lose market share. 

And I am going to—we are going to do everything we can to 

make sure that those kinds of things happen. 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you very much. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Thank you. 

Mr. MILLER [presiding.] Mr. Kildee? 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Secretary Duncan. It is 

good to have you before our committee. They mentioned to you yesterday, I have served, now—it was nine secretaries of Education. 

I was a co-sponsor of the bill that established the department, and 

I have enormous confidence in you. 

And you have an enormous responsibility. The future of education in this country really—weigh heavily on your shoulders. But 

I have that enormous confidence in your integrity and your ability, 

and look forward to working with you. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Thank you. 

Mr. KILDEE. Secretary Duncan, currently the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act, which is the official name—we change 

the name each time we reauthorize. But, currently, ESEA provides 

for the same interventions for schools that do not make AYP—adequate yearly progress—regardless of why or how much a school did 

not meet the AYP. 

Do you believe that it makes sense to provide for some differentiated interventions to encourage and help schools to target their 

responses on the reasons they did not meet AYP, and also to recognize that schools that miss AYP by an inch do not need as much 

extensive intervention as those who miss by a mile? 

Secretary DUNCAN. It is a really thoughtful question. And one of 

the challenges with the current law is exactly what you say. It is 

what I call—what I label it as is a blunt instrument—that it puts 

every school in the same—too many schools in the same category. 

And the complexity in those stories amongst those schools is actually very different. 

Part of what I used to be frustrated with is you had schools that 

were actually showing pretty significant progress each year, that 

were really improving, that were labeled as failures. And that is 

demoralizing. That is very tough on staff and, you know, faculty 

and teachers that are working really hard every day. It is confusing to parents. 

And where schools are improving each year, rather than slapping 

them and labeling them as failures, we need to actually encourage 

that and reward that, and help them continue to grow. 
21 

So I think you have to be much more differentiated in how you 

approach school. And when you think about those schools that are 

labeled as failures—some are actually getting better. Some are, you 

know, pretty mediocre. And then I have talked about those schools 

that are truly at the bottom where, frankly, I don’t think we went 

far enough historically—where I think we need to be much tougher 

in our intervention—not just invest more resources in a dysfunctional culture, but fundamentally challenge that status quo. 

So the idea of greater differentiation and more thoughtfulness, 

and really understanding which schools are improving, which 

schools are flat-lining, and which schools are really a huge problem—and being very, very specific in what our remedy—what our 

answer is in each—those situations—I think is absolutely the right 

thing to do for children. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Secretary, President Obama has talked about the importance 

of every American having at least 1 year of post-secondary education. I have introduced legislation, H.R. 1578, the Fast Track to 

College Act, that would support early college, high school, and 

other dual-enrollment programs, to expose low-income students to 

college. 

We have that in Flint, Michigan. You can go to Central High 

School, where I taught, and also enroll at the University of Michigan. You can get up to 60 college credits while you are in high 

school. 

When that was inaugurated with the community college several 

years ago, we thought that would take care of those who were, you 

know, the very talented, who needed that higher challenge. But we 

found out, very often, those who were not doing well at all, were 

just kind of dropped-out mentally, really sparkled when they got 

into a program like that. 

Would you support a program of early college—— 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. I am a huge fan of dual enrollment. And 

we talked about investing in what works, and scaling up what 

works. That is an example of a program, not just in Flint, Michigan, but, I think, generally, around the country, that has been extraordinarily effective, and for a couple reasons. 

First of all, obviously, at a time when going to college is so expensive, getting those college credits in your back pocket, before 

you graduate from high school is a huge boost to families and to 

students. 

But your second point is actually the more important one to 

me—that we have so many students today that are first-generation, that may not have a parent who graduated from high school, 

let alone went to college, who might be new to the country, where 

they are smart, they are committed, they are working hard. 

But they might think college isn’t for them. They don’t know that 

world. Social isolation is so profound, they might think they might 

not belong on a college campus. 

And for those students, as a junior and senior year, who might 

be struggling, who might not really envision that in their future— 

for them to understand, ‘‘I can really do this. I can do this work. 

I belong in that world,’’ the psychological impact on that is extraordinarily important. And the more of that real exposure can happen 
22 

for children who don’t have a family background of college-going, 

and college experience, I think it can really change their aspirations in very important ways. 

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

Mr. Petri? 

Mr. PETRI. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have several questions I would like to submit in writing, if I could, to the secretary. 

We have limited time in this format, and I would look forward to 

your response to those. 

I also wanted to touch on a couple points. And if you would care 

to respond to any of them, that would be fine—first, to thank you 

and the administration for the work you are doing in the directloan area. This program has been a great success, and it will be 

of great benefit to higher education, and to the taxpayer, and to 

students, to expand it as you have been suggesting. And I am looking forward to working with you to that end. 

I understand you are going to be working on a number of reform 

suggestions in the vocational-education area, and, in that connection, would urge that you look at the experience of my own state 

of Wisconsin, where we have had a comprehensive vocational-education program for many years, that involves partnership of business, labor, local governments and the local school systems. And I 

think there may be some ideas that can be built on there. 

I was excited about your opening-statement talk in favor of a better assessment and accountability electronic system. In that connection, Congressman Wu and I have introduced a bill, H.R. 665, 

which really shouldn’t be necessary, which would just reverse the 

Education Department’s denial of the ability of school systems 

around the country—states—to use adaptive testing, under No 

Child Left Behind. 

My own state uses that at its own expense in nearly a third of 

the school districts. It is highly useful to teachers and others. And 

I would urge you to look at that policy, and see if we can’t move 

into the electronic age. 

It is the same program for everyone, but the questions aren’t 

given in the same order, the questions vary. If a student is not able 

to answer the questions, they ask easier and easier questions, until 

they achieve a certain level of success. And, contrary, if they are 

acing it, they ask harder questions. So you get a really good assessment. 

And I am hoping No Child Left Behind means every child gets 

assessed, and that assessment follows the child, and they make 

reasonable improvement from wherever they are, rather than an 

impossible goal of uniform success for every child, which is—we are 

not uniform human beings. 

Third, there is a program called Troops to Teachers. It has been 

very successful. Over 10,000 people have participated. They have 

been outstanding—selected as outstanding teachers in their states, 

quite often. That has been pared way back by the Department of 

Education so that, now, only one of the 420 school districts in my 

state qualifies for Troops to Teachers. 

Congresswoman Matsui, from California introduced legislation to 

attempt to correct what we feel is an improper ruling by the lawyers at your department to restrict this. It was not intended by the 
23 

drafters of the legislation—creating no Troops for Teachers. And 

this is an—you need good teachers to get good outcomes. And it is 

part of the process—and reaching out and getting people to experience—they are—these Troops to Teacher people disproportionately 

minority, male and going into math and science. It is just a wonderful program I think should be built upon, rather than being cut 

back. 

Finally, there is a new inspector general’s report on the Federal 

Student Aid office in your department, arguing that there are a lot 

of abuses in that. And I just want to ask if you were familiar with 

that report, if you plan to take any corrective action. 

A provision in last year’s Higher Education Act required the secretary to refer settlements over $1 million to the attorney general. 

And a number of settlements were entered into prior to that, and 

it has been very costly for the taxpayer. 

I wonder if you could look into whether any cases have, in fact, 

been referred to the attorney general, or are likely to be reviewed, 

or whether some of the settlements could be reopened before the 

statute of limitation expires. And so I think I have left enough on 

your plate, and I will stop there. 

But, anyway, welcome aboard. I look forward to working with 

you. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Thank you. Just very quickly—I am a huge 

fan of Troops to Teachers. I think it is a phenomenal pool of talent. 

You said many men from the minority community—great leaders, 

by definition, who are just phenomenal role models. 

On a broader basis, I am just a big fan of alternative certification. And I think we have to think about these pools of talent 

from many walks of life and, historically, people who didn’t major 

in education as an 18-year-old undergrad have been locked out of 

teaching. 

And we have as many as 1 million teachers—are going to retire 

in the next 4 to 6 years—baby boomer generation coming out—presents some challenges. I think it presents a huge opportunity. 

And our ability to recruit and retain the best and brightest, 

whether they are a 21-year-old right out of school or 35 or 55, coming out of the military—we have a chance to transform public education in our country for the next 25 or 30 years. So it is a huge 

opportunity. Troops to Teachers and, more broadly, alternative certification, is something we are going to push very, very hard. 

Chairman MILLER [presiding]. Thank you. 

Mr. Payne? 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. And let me commend the 

Obama administration, and your department, for really starting to 

put the type of funding we need into public education. As a former 

public-school teacher in North New Jersey—and my three children 

are all either teachers or involved in education—I think this is 

very, very important. 

Let me quickly ask several questions. First of all, with the growing demand for a global economy and strengthening standards in 

education as a result of No Child Left Behind, it seems that today’s 

students have more to learn, but the same amount of time that 

they did when they were doing the farming in June. That is why 
24 

we left school—is the same amount of time we have in our publicschool system. 

Massachusetts expanded the school day, and at the end of the 

year, by 25 percent or 30 percent, for selected students, primarily 

in failing school districts. And it did show positive results. 

What is your stance on having a longer school day? Have you 

given that any consideration? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. I really appreciate you bringing it up. 

And when I speak to students, this is not my applause line. I 

usually get booed. 

Mr. PAYNE. Yes. 

Secretary DUNCAN. But I fundamentally think our day is way too 

short. I think our week is way too short. And I think our year is 

way too short. And our students today are competing against children in India and China. And those students are going to school 

25 percent, 30 percent longer than we are. And our students, I 

think, are at a competitive disadvantage. I think we are doing 

them a disservice. 

So let me explain, because this is a really important one. I think 

we need a longer school day, absolutely. I think, beyond a longer 

school day, our schools themselves need to be open much longer 

hours. I would argue 12, 13, 14 hours a day, with a wide variety 

of after-school programming, both for children and their parents 

and their older brothers and sisters, their family members. 

I want schools to truly become community centers, community 

anchors, with a whole host of after-school activities. Those schools 

need to be open 12, 13 hours a day, 6, 7 days a week, 11, 12 

months out of the year. And I worry tremendously about summer. 

As everyone here knows, our academic calendar is based upon the 

agrarian calendar. 

Mr. PAYNE. Right. 

Secretary DUNCAN. And not too many children are working the 

fields anymore. And I worry, particularly, about children who, you 

know, come from families, and don’t have a lot of books in the 

house—and middle-class children, in the summer, go to summer 

camps, and they visit colleges, and they do enrichment—and children from more disadvantaged backgrounds really struggle over 

the summer. And it is well documented. This is one we don’t need 

anymore studies. 

We saw it all the time in Chicago—what we called ‘‘summer 

reading loss’’—is you get children to a certain point by June, and 

they come back to you in September, they are further behind than 

when they left in June. It is absolutely crazy. 

And so one of the things that we are pushing hard, particularly 

of all this influx of Title I dollars for poor families—is let us get 

more time—weekends, after school, Saturdays. 

One thing we did this last year, in Chicago—I wish we had been 

smart enough to come up with it earlier—we brought back, on a 

voluntary basis, our freshmen, a month early. We had 15,000 freshmen—incoming freshmen—show up a month early. Think about 

that. 

Children want to do something positive. They want to do something productive. We have got to open up our schools and think 

very, very differently. So time is a huge equalizer, particularly for 
25 

children coming from disadvantaged families and communities. 

And we have to be much more creative in how we lengthen the 

day, the week and the year. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. 

In your opinion, are there any innovations that charter schools 

have adopted that you think public schools should consider, that 

has been successful? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes, one big one—time. 

You know, many charters are doing some interesting things 

around curriculum. But if you look at high-performing charter 

schools—almost every single one—they are working with those kids 

longer hours—longer days, longer weeks, shorter summers. 

So when good teaching is happening, time matters. And we simply need more time, again, for those children who may not be getting what we want them to get at home. 

So there are other things that are happening that is creative. 

But one of the, you know, most important common denominators 

is they are simply spending more time working at. It is not rocket 

science. 

Mr. PAYNE. Okay. 

Then I have a couple of other questions—but let me just get one, 

last quick one in. There is a budget item—although I really applaud all the great things that you have done—there is a budget 

item that eliminated, in your budget, the funding for a program 

called Ready to Read. It is a program that is funding PBS. And it 

is a teacher—online program, which has had a lot of success. 

And I wonder if you could take a look at that and evaluate. It 

might have been something that, you know, you look—and said you 

are increasing—you are looking to cut—but it has been a pretty 

successful program. And I would appreciate it if you could get back 

to me on that particular program. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Thank you. I will do that. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. 

Mr. Castle? 

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, we had—thank you. 

Let me thank you, Secretary Duncan, for your engagement and 

involvement in what I consider to be as important as anything we 

are doing in this country. And let me just start with this question, 

which is a college question. 

You and I discussed this a little bit. And I am all for the things 

you are trying to do; that is to shift money around, save more 

money, put it into Pell Grants or whatever it may be. But my concern is the cost of higher education. 

As you undoubtedly know, higher education has had the highest 

per capita rise in costs of any measurable index in this country, including even health care. And that concerns me. And it is—I think 

it is beyond just the salaries of college presidents and a few coaches 

or whatever. It is the entire methodology of running colleges. 

Is there anything that we, as a Congress, or you, in the department, or the president, could be doing to try to keep the pressure 

on, and reducing those costs? Because we just are not going to be 

able to afford to continue to underwrite it with the Pell Grants or 

whatever. And even the Harvards of the worlds are going to have 
26 

trouble with some of their losses in—of taking care of kids who 

couldn’t—not otherwise afford college. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Well, yes. As I said in my testimony—that, 

through the Perkins Proposal, we are really going to try and reward those schools that are doing the right thing. 

But while I worry about it, I really do believe what I said early— 

that due to families being under so much financial pressure now, 

and the fact that we have so many universities out there—I think 

the marketplace is going to play here. And I think families are 

going to stop going to schools where costs are skyrocketing and 

running away. They have too many other good options, too many 

quality, low-cost options. 

So we are going to continue to put pressure on and create some 

incentives. But the public is going to see this stuff. We are asking 

for transparency. We are asking to see, you know, what these increases are looking like each year. 

And, again, I think our parents and our students are going to be 

very, very smart consumers. And you are actually seeing—it is interesting. If you are looking recently, you are seeing universities 

start to go to 3-year programs. You are seeing some universities 

start to go to sort of no-frills campuses—really back to basics, to 

reduce costs. 

And there is a growing marketplace. There is a demand there. 

And so I think this is one we will—I give you my word. We will 

put the pressure on and we will really push transparency. 

But the more universities do this—this is the wrong time, the 

wrong market for them to be going in that direction. And I think 

they will pay a price for it. 

Mr. CASTLE. Good. And I hope you are right about all those 

things. We need to keep an eye on it, and keep working together 

on it. 

In No Child Left Behind, we adopted having standards and assessments. And we had a hearing recently, in which a series of people, mostly state-involved, talked about common standards and a 

state-led approach to common standards. You have also used that 

expression. I want to make sure I understand what we are talking 

about. 

Are we talking about common standards in a regional sense? Or 

are we talking about national standards in—and, obviously, assessments would have to follow all this. So when we talking about national standards and assessments—what do we mean by ‘‘common 

standards’’? 

And just another part to all this—I think our standards are low 

right now. I think they were set low and they stayed that way. 

What can we do to increase standards, apart from going to whatever the common standards may be? 

Secretary DUNCAN. And this is a really interesting one. This 

goes, actually, back to the framework of NCLB. 

And it is interesting—from a management’s perspective, for those 

running the, you know, department or a business or school system—you always think thorough what you have managed loose and 

what you managed tight. 

And what I think NCLB got fundamentally wrong is they were 

very, very loose on the goals. So you have 50 states, 50 different 
27 

goal posts, all over the map. And you are exactly right. Due to political pressure, the vast majority of those standards got dummied 

down. 

Mr. CASTLE. Right. 

Secretary DUNCAN. And what I have been pushing very hard is— 

I think in far too many states, including the state I am from, in 

Illinois—those standards have been dummied down so far that we 

are actually lying to children. And let me explain what I mean. 

When a child and a parent hears that they are ‘‘meeting a state 

standard,’’ the logical conclusion is, ‘‘If I am meeting a standard, 

I am doing okay.’’ 

But in far too many places, those standards have been dummied 

down so much that if you are meeting the standard, you are barely 

qualified to graduate from high school, and you are absolutely inadequately prepared to get into a competitive university, let along 

graduate. 

And so, I think, as a country, we are doing, in many places, a 

real disservice to children. And the one level playing field we have 

is the NAPE results. And it is interesting. You have some states 

where, in their state, 85 percent, 90 percent of kids are meeting 

state standards—on the NAPE, 15 percent. 

Mr. CASTLE. I see. 

Secretary DUNCAN. So these huge, huge disparities—who is 

lying? Who is telling the truth? 

And so what I think we need is common college-ready, careerready and, I would argue, internationally benchmarked standards. 

Again, I want our children to compete on a level playing field with 

children in India and China. 

I don’t think this should come from the federal government. 

There shouldn’t be federal standards. There shouldn’t be Department of Education standards. 

But what you see happening is a really interesting movement. 

You have a set of state school chiefs that are working very, very 

hard on this. You have a set of governors that are coming together 

to work on this. The business community has been crying out for 

this for a long time. The not-for-profit sector, Achieve, College 

Board, Gates—are all on board. 

And very interestingly, in the past 2 months, you have seen the 

presidents of both national unions, the NEA and the AFT, come on 

board and say, ‘‘We need to do something different here.’’ 

This is an idea that I think, historically, people call it a ‘‘third 

rail,’’ or people are scared to talk about it. To me, it is really common sense, and we are going to really try and help—you know, 

help incent this and put some money on the table to encourage it. 

But everyone—business, non-profits, you know, political leaders, 

state school chiefs, the unions, us—we are all saying that thinking 

about this in a very different way is the right way to go. 

So I think, as a country, as we think about NCLB reauthorization, I think we should be tight on the goals—very clear on the 

goals—give people flexibility toward how to achieve that goal. 

And, really, I think the great ideas for education—the innovation—will always come from the local level. It will never come from 

Washington. And the more we hold folks accountable for results— 

but allow them to be creative and to innovate and to entrepre-
28 

neurial—to hit that higher bar—so tight on the bar, looser on how 

you get there—less descriptive on how you get there. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Scott? 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

You had mentioned in your prepared remarks, the problem of 

drop-out. We, obviously, have dropout factories. We also have a situation that some dropout factories are actually getting credit for 

adequate yearly progress. 

Would you support making the dropout rate an essential element 

in maintaining adequate yearly progress? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Well, I think it is even broader than that is— 

again, as we think about NCLB reauthorization—now, I am just 

listening and learning, too, around the country. And I am learning 

so much talking to students and to teachers and the parents and 

to principals. 

But I think one thing we can all agree on—if you have the best 

third-grade test scores in the world, but 50 percent of your students are dropping out, you are really not helping kids. You are not 

changing lives. 

And so, at the end of the day, really thinking about graduation 

rates as a benchmark that we have to hold ourselves accountable 

for, collectively—at the district level, at the state level and at the 

national level—that is hugely important to me. 

Mr. SCOTT. One part of the response to lack of adequate yearly 

progress of certain sanctions or responses, some of which have 

nothing to do with the subgroup that caused the failure. If one subgroup fails, then the response is a response that covers everybody. 

Would you support a change in this to make sure that the response to a failure in adequate yearly progress would address the 

problem? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. 

Let me answer this a little bit more broadly. And I think this is 

really important—that, as we think about NCLB reauthorization, 

we have a huge opportunity here. And this is something we are not 

going to do every year. You know, we are going to do this once 

every 5, 6 years—whatever the right rhythm is. We need to get this 

right. 

And so let me be really clear. I think we have a chance to think 

‘‘blue skies.’’ I want to continue to travel the country and really get 

the pulse of the country. But where things are working, we absolutely need to continue them and support them. And when things 

aren’t working, let us just not tweak around the edges. Let us fix 

it. 

And so, without getting into all the specifics of what those are, 

we have a real chance here to build upon the successes, and build 

upon what made a lot of sense, and to think fundamentally different where things didn’t make sense. 

And so I just want to, you know, ask all of you to work with me 

to think about how we take this to the next level and really do a 

much, much better job of creating the right set of incentives and 

consequences and rewards to help schools and school districts do 

the right thing by children. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 
29 

And can you tell us, in a teacher’s career, when the teacher is 

at his or her best? 

Secretary DUNCAN. I wish I had an exact number on that. 

Mr. SCOTT. Would it be the first year or the second year or 

they—— 

Secretary DUNCAN. I think—— 

Mr. SCOTT. As they become more experienced, they become better? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. 

Teaching is like being a congressman. And it takes some years 

to learn the ropes and to be an—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, if that is the case, then some of the programs 

to get teachers into teaching only keep them in for 2 or 3 years, 

which seems to me—before they have gotten to their—what could 

be their best. 

Should there be incentives in some of these programs that encourage teachers to get in—be incentives for them to stay in much 

longer, so that we can get the full benefit of those incentives? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Let me answer that in two parts. 

I think we have to do everything we can to keep our good teachers teaching. And we actually lose far too many of our good teachers because we don’t adequately support them, we don’t give them 

the classroom-management skills, we don’t give them good mentoring induction, and we lose far too many of our good teachers. 

The flip side of it is I think we have teachers who aren’t good, 

who stay too long. And so it is really thinking about how we find 

out—how do we identify the best and the brightest, do a much better job of supporting them. Where it is just not the right profession—not keeping them in there for the next 25 or 30 years, I 

think, is equally as important. 

And I think we have to improve on both sides—really making 

sure we keep the best and brightest, and how we have honest conversations with those that need to find something else to do with 

their lives. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

And, finally, I have introduced legislation on youth-violence prevention, that takes a holistic approach, requiring the community to 

come together—the Youth Promise Act. 

Secretary DUNCAN. I am sorry. I didn’t quite hear you. 

Mr. SCOTT. The Youth Promise Act—— 

Secretary DUNCAN. Okay. 

Mr. SCOTT [continuing]. Which requires the community to come 

together in a holistic strategy, to deal with young people. 

Can you say a bit about what we need to do, and how we need 

to address youth violence? 

Secretary DUNCAN. That is a huge, huge, huge issue. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, rather than let you do it off the top of your 

head—— 

Secretary DUNCAN. Okay. 

Mr. SCOTT [continuing]. If you could respond in writing, then—— 

Secretary DUNCAN. I will. 

I would just say, quickly, that we have to dramatically reduce it 

not just in schools, but in communities. And what we want to do— 

I am a big fan of what has gone on in the Harlem Children’s 
30 

Zone—what Geoffrey Canada has done there. And we have real 

money to try and create other Harlem Children’s Zones to replicate 

that. 

I think creating the environment not just in the school, but in 

the surrounding community, where life is valued and where education is valued—we want to play in that in a big way. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Kline? 

Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, good to see you. 

We just jump around to keep the witnesses on their toes as to 

where we might be sitting. 

As you know, Mr. Secretary, for, now, over 30 years, the federal 

government has demanded through IDEA that all schools fund special education—provide special education. And the federal government was supposed to provide 40 percent of that funding. It has 

never come close. 

We had a few years, from 1995 to about 2005, where we steadily 

brought that percentage up. It never got to 20 percent. And, frankly, Mr. Secretary, I was surprised when this budget came out, that 

you haven’t done anything about increasing that funding for special—why didn’t you fully fund IDEA in this budget? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Well, I think you probably know, in the Recovery Act, we have put north of $10 billion—— 

Mr. KLINE. Which still leaves us far short, by the way—that gets 

you, at the most—if you spent all $11.5 billion in 1 year, you would 

still be well short of the 40 percent, and does nothing going forward. 

So the question is still the same. You put in, oh, at least five new 

K-12 programs in the president’s budget, $500 million for a new 

Title I early childhood grant program, $300 million for a new Early 

Learning Challenge Fund, $100 million for a new What Works and 

Innovation Fund. 

The point is we are putting new programs in that are not fully 

funded. And, yet, we haven’t come close to meeting this obligation. 

And I just wondered why it wasn’t put in the budget. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Well, again, I think there is an unprecedented investment in this; a dramatic increase the likes of which 

we have never seen before, that I am aware of. It is a very, very 

significant step in the right direction. And we, obviously, have to 

balance lots of different needs. 

So we took a very significant step, I think, in the right direction 

there. But we have to look across the board, as well. 

Mr. KLINE. So you just didn’t have the money? But we have 

money for new programs that will be chronically under-funded? 

This House just passed legislation putting you in the school-construction business, which—and I am afraid, once again, we have 

got a new very, very expensive program, a federal-government program, which will be chronically under-funded, and will be competing again for this special-education money, for IDEA funding. 

If we would fund IDA to the extent that we are supposed to the 

extent that we are obligated to—we would help every school district in America. These other programs are going to help some, not 

help some, advantage some, disadvantage others. 
31 

I would just really like to see the administration’s—one of the 

great disappointments I had with the Bush administration—they 

brought in No Child Left Behind. There was a lot of discussion, 

some excitement, some disappointment. And we have been talking 

about that here. 

But they didn’t fund it either. And it just seems to me it is a 

shortfall hat we ought to be able to agree, across party lines, and 

from across branches of government, that it is an obligation that 

we ought to meet. 

And I appreciate that more money was put in when we were 

throwing hundreds of billions of dollars that we were borrowing, 

out to stimulate the economy—some money went in there—but that 

is a along way from actually budgeting for IDEA, and making a 

commitment to meet that 40 percent funding, and helping every 

school district in America. 

So I understand the answer. You are where you are. But I would 

just ask you, as the head of the Department of Education, and 

working with this administration: Let us try to move that forward 

and help every school in America. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. KLINE. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. 

Ms. Woolsey? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

I just have to think out loud that it is quite strange that Mr. 

Kline didn’t vote for the stimulus package, which would have— 

which did double IDEA—— 

Mr. KLINE. Would the gentlelady yield? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. I am sorry. I really shouldn’t have even said that. 

Mr. KLINE. Exactly. Thank you. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Reclaiming my time. 

Mr. Secretary, I was glad to see the president’s budget request 

included $10 million for Promise neighborhoods, as this is an issue 

I have always been interested in, about coordinating full services 

at or near the school site so that kids can come to school ready to 

learn. I just don’t think we provide a complete product to the teachers when these children are hungry or scared or sick. 

So could you provide us with any more information about how 

president envisions these grants to work? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. And this is, obviously—I think a huge 

step in the right direction. But this is money simply to plan. In the 

subsequent budget years, we want to put real resources on the 

table to basically try and replicate what has worked around the 

Harlem Children’s Zone. And where we can make improvements, 

we want to do that, too. 

But as everyone here understands, schools are not islands. They 

exist in larger communities. And the more we can create environments—to Mr. Scott’s question—that are safe for children—the 

more we create environments where everyone from babies to adults 

are involve in their own education, and really supporting families— 

the more we are taking a comprehensive approach for communities 

that have been disadvantaged and underserved for far too long— 
32 

we create the climate and the culture and the environment in 

which students can thrive and be successful. 

So there has been some very rigorous analysis of the results coming out of the Harlem Children’s Zone. We are very, very encouraged by that. There is tremendous interest in this around the country. And we are going to put significant resources on the table. The 

philanthropic community is also very interested in this, so I think 

we can leverage some private-sector dollars here, as well. 

And so our goal is to issue a request for proposals, an RFP, and 

to start working with a set of locations—and these aren’t school 

districts—a set of neighborhoods, basically, that are really willing 

to think differently, think about the intersection of education and 

non-profits and the business community and religious institutions—to come together to create the environment in which every 

single child can thrive. 

So it is a very, very exciting opportunity. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, I look forward to working with you on that. 

I think it is very important. 

I am going to change the subject immediately to nutrition standards. For the foods that are sold outside of school meal programs— 

they haven’t been updated since my children were in school in the 

1970s. 

And I have introduced legislation—H.R. 1324, the Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch Protection Bill—to update these 

standards. 

And my question to you is: Do you support updating the nutrition standards for foods in vending machines and ‘‘a la carte’’ lines 

and other foods sold outside of the school meal programs? And are 

you going to help us with this? 

Secretary DUNCAN. There is a lot of work we need to do. And I 

am going to work very closely with Secretary Vilsack, who has done 

a—I think he is going to do a phenomenal job there at the Department of Ag—that does the lunches. 

But we need to think about what we are doing, not just around 

the food we offer—what we are doing around nutrition and obesity—what we are doing to promote healthy lifestyles and exercise. 

So there is a whole package of activities that, I think, we need to 

be much more creative on. 

And so we need to think about those standards. We need to think 

about our lunches. We need to think about what is in the vending 

machines—— 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Yes. 

Secretary DUNCAN [continuing]. What is available to kids. 

And when you see children going to school in the morning with 

a pop and a pack of chips, I really worry about what kind of day 

they are going to have. And we see that all too often. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. And what their teachers are going to have to put 

up with. 

Well, speaking of creativity, music and—is part of education, as 

far as I am concerned. And I fear that, with No Child Left Behind, 

we squeezed too many of our music and arts programs. 

And so how does the department plan to ensure that we have 

more art and music and creativity—— 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. These are great questions. 
33 

Ms. WOOLSEY [continuing]. In our curriculums. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Again, whether it is art or music or dance or 

drama—and I would go—you know, chess, debate—— 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Yes. 

Secretary DUNCAN [continuing]. Sports, academic decathlon—we 

need to do so much more if we are—again, if we are serious about 

reducing dropout rates and keeping students engaged—we need to 

do so much more to give students a menu of options, and let them 

figure out what their passion is. 

And what always bothers me is these kinds of opportunities, historically—these have been normal opportunities for children who go 

to private schools. And for children who go to public schools, there 

are somehow seen as extracurricular—something that can afford to 

be cut. 

And I think all of these things—I mean, there is a huge correlation, as you know, between music aptitude and math. But even beyond that, just giving students a reason to be excited about coming 

to school—and it might be the band; it might be the orchestra; it 

might be to perform in a play; it might be to be on the chess team 

or the debate team. 

When we talk about lengthening the day and lengthening the— 

you know, the year, and creating these opportunities both during 

the school day and after school—I don’t think we can do enough of 

this. 

And, as I talk to students in Detroit, so many of them talked 

about—it was the band, it was the football team—those are the 

reasons why they kept going to school and didn’t drop out. 

And so I think we have to think very, very differently—get away 

from narrowing the curriculum, and investing in those things that 

give students a chance to be excited about coming to school, but to 

find their passion and build their sense of self-esteem. 

Chairman MILLER. Mrs. Biggert? 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, welcome, Mr. Secretary. And thank you for all that you accomplished as the CEO of the Chicago Public Schools. It was a 

pleasure to work with you on a couple of issues that you had with 

the then-secretary of Education. 

And you were a winner there, and did a great job representing 

the Chicago Public School. So—— 

Secretary DUNCAN. Thanks for all your support. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. 

And I think we expect great things from you as secretary of education. And with your vision and experience, I know that you will 

succeed. So we are really happy to have you there. 

A couple of questions—turning back to the student loans that 

Mr. McKeon mentioned—approximately 25 percent of the student 

loans originate now through the Direct Loan Program, compared to 

75 percent from the FFEL Program—and how are you going to 

switch, if we have to, to handle the increased volume required by 

the president’s proposal? 

And since all of those FFEL programs seemed to have worked— 

but I know we have had a discussion in the last several Congresses 

about the issue between the two programs—but why do we want 

to just continue with one programs, without much debate here? 
34 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. 

I think the simple goal is to do the—create the best deal we can 

for students, for their parents and for taxpayers. And you have a 

situation where, as you know—that the FFEL Program was on life 

support—we, as a government, were heavily subsidizing the vast 

majority of those loans anyway. 

And if we have a chance to move out of the business of subsidizing banks and put, you know, year after year, literally billions 

of dollars of additional resources out to students at a time when 

going to college has never been more expensive, it has never been, 

you know, tougher for families, and there has never been less resources at home to—a chance to do all this without adding another 

taxpayer dollar to the mix, I think, is the right thing to do. 

And so what we want to do is really make sure, on the private 

side, that the private sector services these loans—we don’t want to 

get in that business. That shouldn’t be the business we are in. We 

can create real opportunities there, and create the competition and 

have providers that are doing a great job of servicing—give them 

more business, going forward. 

So I think there is a real chance for the private sector to continue 

to play. But at the end of the day, the goal is simply to try and 

get the best deal we can for students, for parents, for taxpayers. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. I guess I don’t see the difference with the private 

loans, versus the direct loan—costing less. And with less competition, won’t the costs go up? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Well, no. Actually, the differences—to keep 

the private sector engaged, we have heavily, heavily subsidized 

that to a tune of billions of dollars a year. And we simply want to 

transfer those subsidies—those dollars—from banks to students. 

And so it is a different priority, but we think it is the right priority. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Okay. 

Then, just going back to the—the special ed, for a moment—and 

not the money, but, you know, special ed in the No Child Left Behind has always been, you know, a special category. And so many 

teachers that I have talked to where—when they were going to do 

the testing said that they were just in tears when they had to include the special-ed children in their grade level. 

And I think that the No Child Left Behind did a great job of really increasing the quality of education for the special-ed kids. But 

at the same time, when those tests came along, it really was demoralizing and really a disaster for that testing. Is that going to 

change? Are you looking ahead to that? 

Secretary DUNCAN. It is a really thoughtful question. And I think 

this is one—again, as we think about NCLB reauthorization—that 

we need to be very, very thoughtful on both sides of the equation. 

Let me give you both that—I have heard lots of horror stories of 

students asked to take a test where they had, you know—couldn’t 

begin to read the questions—and it would be an absolutely traumatizing experience. So does that make sense for that child? It 

doesn’t. 

The flip side of that is you want to maintain a high bar. And you 

have, now, in the current legislation, these exemptions of a certain 

percent of students, arbitrarily—that doesn’t make sense either. 
35 

So I think we have to sort of find that balance act between walking away from accountability, which we absolutely don’t want to do, 

and just, you know, exempting students—but also having an assessment that is appropriate for the students’ cognitive ability. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Yes. 

Secretary DUNCAN. And so we have to sort of find that—strike 

that balance. And we have some work to do to get it there. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Would you consider—or using their LAP to decide 

what test level they would take? 

Secretary DUNCAN. If you are going to look these issues, you— 

you would have to look at the IAPs. It would have to be part of 

the conversation. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Okay. 

Secretary DUNCAN. So I think this one and the other one that is 

complicated similarly is how you access the knowledge of Englishlanguage learners, ELL students. I think, on both of these, we need 

to have some real conversation, debate, and figure out who is doing 

the best in the country, and trying to scale that up. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Unfortunately, my time is expired. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Hinojosa? 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Duncan, thank you for coming to visit with us. And I 

want to say that the remarks in the opening part of this meeting 

is excellent, because you address so many problems that are of concern to us in Texas. 

I had the pleasure of going to China with a co-del led by Buck 

McKeon. And we wanted to know why their high schools were outperforming ours by so much. And we learned some of the things 

that you used in your remarks. And that was parental involvement 

plus early reading plus writing, equals success in school—was the 

way that they answered the questions when we met with stakeholder out there. 

Number two, we saw that, on the weekends, they were doing exactly what you said today. And that was utilizing their schools for 

extracurricular activities and, thus, really utilizing their schools— 

longer days, longer weeks—all of that, we saw it ourselves, as 

members of Congress. So we want to support your thinking. 

But I am going to focus on something that is also of great interest to me, because it is shocking to hear that in Detroit, we have 

had as much as 75 percent dropout rate. In minority populations 

like—districts like mine—80 percent Hispanic—we have 50 percent 

dropout. And it is tough as heck to get our kids to go to college. 

The National Center for Education Statistics report that since 

1984, minority undergraduate student enrollments surged by 146 

percent, compared to growth of only 15 percent for the white population of students. Minority-serving institutions represent less than 

one-third of all degree-granting, Title IV institutions, but enroll 

more than half of all the minority students. 

How does this administration plan to build on the efforts that 

Congress has already made in the passage of the—I think we call 

it the College Cost Reduction and Access Act, plus the passage of 

Higher Education Opportunity Act? 

Secretary DUNCAN. I think one of the most important things we 

can do as a country is get many more students going to college, but 
36 

particularly, students from the minority community. And I think 

this huge expansion in resources to make college more affordable— 

Pell Grant, Perkins Loans, tuition tax credits—the students going 

to those minority-serving institutions often come from financially 

difficult situations. And they are going to be huge beneficiaries of 

these new resources. 

So I think if we can continue to put this money on the table year 

after year after year, and families can know that they have access 

to these resources—that is going to be very, very important. 

And let me just add one quick thing on that. To me, again, it is 

not just the money. It is students, at a young age, knowing that 

money is going to be there for them—this idea of making it mandatory—because I worry a lot about really smart third and fourth and 

fifth and sixth-grades whose father might have lost a job, whose 

mother may have taken a 50 percent pay cut, who start to think 

at an early age, ‘‘Because of my family’s financial situation, college 

isn’t for me.’’ 

And if we, as a country, can say, ‘‘This money is mandated. This 

money is going to be there. It doesn’t matter what is going on at 

home,’’ I think, again, the psychological message at an early age 

that is sent to students—so there is a reason to hope. There is a 

reason to work hard. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. I agree with you. 

And I want to say that, back in 1998, we started the GEAR UP 

Program, which was intended to address that children could see 

that, if they stayed in school, there was light at the end of the tunnel. 

So we need to consider increasing the GEAR UP Program funding, if we are going to answer that concern of yours. 

But let me go on to visits by chancellors and presidents, in my 

office, saying that accessibility and affordability to higher education 

was their highest priority. 

And you answered Congressman Castle’s question of—as far as 

I am concerned, on skyrocketing costs of college education. But let 

us go, then, to the issue that you discussed earlier, about supporting—I know I want to support your college-student loan program because, according to numbers that I saw—the Congressional 

Budget Office estimate that the savings of the direct government 

student-loan program—can yield $93 billion over the next 10 years. 

And my question to you is: What can we do in Congress to help— 

that this program is going to be successful the next decade? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. 

Well, this is obviously—this is in our fiscal year 2010 budget. 

And your support of that measure would be extraordinarily important. We can help students, as you said, for decades, without asking for another dollar from taxpayers. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Secretary, I know we were hoping to hold 

you here until 11:30. If you could stay with us another 15 minutes, 

there is no shortage of members who have questions. But we expect 

votes starting, probably, in about 10 minutes. 

On this side of the aisle, I have Mr. Thompson, Mr. Roe and Ms. 

Guthrie. And, over here, is McCarthy, Tierney, Davis—all of it depends on who shows or doesn’t. Oh, Mr. Thompson left. 
37 

So, Mr. Roe? 

Mr. ROE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have spent 24 years in the public-school system. I told the committee last week, ‘‘I overdosed on it.’’ But I think education is not 

a cost, but an investment. And I think we look at it as a cost. And 

as you said earlier, money—and, very eloquently—money is not always the answer. 

And I guess one of the first questions I want to ask you is: We 

have been spending more and more and more money, and getting 

worse and worse and worse results. Why is that? 

Secretary DUNCAN. I don’t know if I totally agree with that. I 

think what we see is very uneven results. I think you see some 

places of extraordinary excellence, and school—school districts, individual schools, charter groups—getting phenomenal results with 

very difficult populations. And you see other places, you know, like 

Detroit—which I think is, like, Ground Zero, educationally. 

So what I see is not uniformity. I see very disparate outcomes. 

And while that presents some challenges, to me, it is actually why 

I am so hopeful that I would argue we have more good ideas about 

what works today, than we have at any previous time. And over 

the past 5, 10, 15 years, we have seen more entrepreneurial educators. We have seen great visionaries step up. 

And so in every community—rural, inner-city, urban—we have 

examples of schools and children beating the odds every single day. 

What I want to do is to invest wisely, and to really take to scale 

those best practices, and invest in what works. 

And so I think we have a real opportunity here to make those 

pockets of excellence, systems of excellence, and sort of get away 

from this idea of islands, and make these high-quality opportunities the norm, rather than the exception. 

Mr. ROE. I agree with that. 

I live in eastern Tennessee, and trained in west Tennessee, at 

Memphis. And my wife taught for 3 years in the school system 

there. 

One of the questions we get all the time—and I will make just 

one comment, and then ask you the question. I am right with you 

on this alternative certification, because, as a physician, I can’t be 

qualified to teach eighth-grade health. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Right. 

Mr. ROE. That is crazy. 

And you can’t teach health in high school. I couldn’t do it if I retired and wanted to do that. So I am with you 100 percent that we 

need to have ways to get folks who have retired as chemists and 

mathematicians and so forth, back in the school. And I agree with 

that. 

One of the things we hear—and I know you have heard it, until 

you are deaf—is that the teachers—and I have many, many of 

them who have been patients of mine, complain that, ‘‘Look, Dr. 

Roe, I am just teaching to the test. That is what I am doing.’’ 

How do you answer those teachers in the classroom? When we 

talk about a—and I agree with you, the standards are all over the 

place. And if we have a national standard, how do we answer that 

question? 
38 

Secretary DUNCAN. I think the real question is not ‘‘teaching to 

the test,’’ but the question is, ‘‘Is it a good assessment?’’ 

I think if it is a good assessment, then you want people teaching 

to it. And if it is a bad assessment, you don’t. 

And so, again, really thinking about this high bar, and thinking 

about making it quality, and thinking about, ‘‘Does it evaluate critical-thinking skills?’’ Are we teaching our children to think and to 

write, and to express their ideas critically? 

And if we can collectively come up with assessments that are 

strong, that are good assessments, that—I think that is a good 

thing. I can’t speak for you, but you had to pass, you know, some 

exams to become a doctor. If those are good exams, teaching to 

those is actually a good thing. It gives you the knowledge and skills 

you need. 

So really thinking about the quality of assessments, I think, is 

very, very important, going forward. 

Mr. ROE. I had to chuckle a little bit when you said about how 

we wanted to get the government out of the business of banking. 

Anyway, I won’t go there. 

In China—I read a statistic the other day, or saw a statistic the 

other day, where they have more honor students than we have students in this country. That is a scary number, when you compete 

on the world market. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. 

I think so much of our challenge, honestly—you know, money is 

a piece of the answer. But let me be clear: The money is only good 

if we leverage reform. If we invest in the status quo, we are not 

going to get where we need to go in the country. We have to drive 

a very strong reform agenda. And, secondly, we have to raise our 

expectations with adults. 

And a huge part of the problem is we have too many adults who 

don’t really believe that children can be successful—and thinking 

about how we get more students taking A.P. classes, how we get 

more minority students taking A.P. classes. 

We, as adults, have to really believe in our hearts that every single child, regardless of family background, regardless of socioeconomic status, can be successful. And not to just belabor this, but 

I met with this phenomenal students in Detroit—worked hard to 

overcome horrendous odds—super-smart, going to college. 

I have come to understand they don’t have an A.P. class in their 

high school. How is that possible? How is that possible today? 

Mr. ROE. I guess one other thing, right quick—and then you may 

have to answer this—because I know the other folks want to ask 

questions—but on schools that are failing, 2,000 schools equal half 

of our dropouts. Why don’t we do something? 

I am a person that is gone to nothing but public schools, but— 

a charter school or a scholarship or anything to get them out of 

there, because we are letting a generation fail. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Well, I think we have to turn those schools 

around. 

And, again, we did this in Chicago. There are other folks who are 

good in this business. And just to continue to invest in a situation 

that is broken—I think we have to think very, very differently. 
39 

Let me be clear: The high-school dropout rate is not just a highschool issue. It means you look at those high schools. We have to 

look at their feeder middle schools. And we have to look at those 

feeder elementary schools. And if we can look at all those schools 

at the same time, we can change the opportunity structure for that 

entire neighborhood. 

But this takes courage. This takes the willingness to challenge 

the status quo. Tinkering around the edges here is not going to get 

us where we need to go. 

Chairman MILLER. Mrs. McCarthy? 

Mr. ROE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I certainly welcome you, Secretary Duncan. We had a few minutes to talk earlier, about school safety. And that is going to be 

something that I have been working on for a number of years. 

I agree that, you know, there is a lot more work that needs to 

be done. But you are probably one of the few, if not only, secretary 

of Education, that is coming from a school district, or from a—yes, 

from a school district—that has had, unfortunately, an awful lot of 

violence in those schools. I have some of those schools in my district. And I guess anyone that is in a urban-suburban area sees 

that. 

So one of the things that I wanted to ask about was—your budget proposes to zero out the state grants for safe and drug-free 

schools and transfer a portion of that funding to the national programs. 

I guess what I am looking at—you know, why do you see the 

money going from the safe and drug-free, into the national programs? But I guess what confuses me—if you believe the national 

programs are better, then why only take—I guess you took $110 

million out of the $295 million. So it is kind of leaving both programs starving, I guess. 

One other thing, too, is that I also believe—many of our students 

are doing excellent. Unfortunately, it is middle school and high 

school that we start to see the dropouts starting. 

We have worked in my district on Project GRAD. The TRIO Program works terrific. What we have seen—where the kids, when 

they got involved in it, they were able to bring other youngsters, 

that probably never would. We see their marks going up, and going 

to college. 

So with that, I would appreciate your answers. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. 

I will take the second one first. You know, Project GRAD, TRIO, 

GEAR UP—all those programs—dual enrollment—we talked about 

all these programs that are giving students exposure and access to 

higher education, not just as juniors and seniors, but in fifth and 

sixth and seventh grade—I think are hugely important. 

So we want to continue to do more there. And, again, this idea 

of social isolation and breaking down those barriers is so important 

to me, and really helping students aspire to be successful. And understanding they can fit in in that environment is critically important. 

On the safe and drug-free, it was a simple strategic decision. We 

had some significant research from IES showing that the money 
40 

going out to states basically got that looted. There was no real impact. And I want to get that money to districts. I want to get that 

money to where the action is. 

And, so, at the state level, we didn’t see much positive going on. 

If we can use that money to get it out to schools and to districts, 

and really make an impact there—we thought that was a better 

strategic decision. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Now, are you going to increase the amount of 

money in it, so that when you are looking at the school that needs 

to have—you know, I have several under-served schools in my district that—a lot of these programs are there. It is working. 

I wish it just could go through high school, and not just at certain grades, though. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. Yes. 

No, I understand the concern. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. 

Mr. Guthrie? 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. 

And I worked in these issues, in the state legislature. And when 

we finally started to come up with policies I thought that were better, is when we spent a lot of time studying failures and why 

schools failed, and called superintendents up and said, ‘‘Why are 

you failing?’’ 

And we finally decided—and I heard Jack Kemp say it, actually, 

and it changed my attitude about it—we need to look at schools 

that, demographically should be—or you would predict to fail, that 

were successful, and study success and how you replicate it. And 

that changed the whole way we thought about it. So we need to 

replicate success. And I just look at the failing schools. 

One question—I was just taking a picture on the steps of the 

Capitol yesterday. And it had all these students sitting around in 

high school. And the mom said, ‘‘How are we going to pay for college?’’ That is the number-one issue in people’s mind today, I think. 

And I think one of the biggest issues in the country—because 

people have to say, ‘‘pathway to the middle class’’—and it is 

through college. And they are seeing that. That is going on, so I 

am glad that is a priority. 

And there is a question on the failed programs, as we were looking at this. My understanding is the $93 billion is money that the 

banks would be making on these programs, not necessarily a subsidy paid to the banks. It is $93 billion. And by the government 

doing a Direct Loan Program, the $93 billion would be coming to 

the government instead of the banks. 

And the government can borrow at a lower interest rate. And, 

therefore, are we going to reflect that back in what the students 

pay? Or, for instance, if the students have a fixed pay to the private bank, and they pay the same rate to the government, and the 

government’s loan—able to loan money at a lower rate, then the 

government’s actually taking some money from these students who 

are struggling to go to college, and funding other programs with 

that. 

They are subsidizing other programs. Is that accurate? 
41 

Secretary DUNCAN. I need to get clear on the technical side of 

that. And Bob Shireman is actually testifying here today. And he 

can walk that through. 

But I guess our simple—again, our simple goal is to, you know, 

figure out what is right for taxpayers, for students, and for their 

families. And the goal is not subsidizing the banks, but putting 

more money, on an ongoing basis, on an annual basis every single 

year, to increase access and affordability—we think it is absolutely 

the right thing to do. 

But we are not looking to make a margin on this, to be clear. 

Chairman MILLER. Has the gentleman’s time expired? Oh, it 

hasn’t. Okay. 

We will be having a hearing on the loan program tomorrow, in 

the committee. And Mr. Shireman will be among one of the witnesses. 

Mr. Tierney? 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today. 

I have to take 1 minute of time, unfortunately, just because I 

don’t’ think it should continually go unaddressed. Our friend from 

Michigan—or from Minnesota, rather—was talking about IDEA 

funds. 

And it continues to amaze me how people can continue to say 

that this is a legislative mandate. Those that know the history of 

that law know that it is, in fact, a judicial mandate, where the 

courts indicated that every child deserves an education. And the 40 

percent was an authorization number, not a commitment or promise or a spending—appropriation number. 

And when Mr. Kline and I had the motion to fully fund IDA— 

for several years in a row, we were in the minority—not a single 

Republican voted for it. 

So we all do—and I happen to be someone who believes we 

should fund as much of it as we can. It gives money down at the 

local communities for flexibility—but just to get the history 

straight on that. 

I want to congratulate you and the president on focusing on the 

cost of higher education. And I would like to get a commitment 

from you—in that latest bill—the Higher Education Act that we 

passed—were policies in there to reward colleges that kept their— 

their increases on tuition and fees down to the cost of living, and 

give them incentives by giving them more campus-based aid, and 

the provision that states would maintain their effort—that they 

couldn’t simply take the federal money and then take a walk—and 

take their money out of the picture. 

Are you committed to enforcing both of those provisions as much 

as possible, and to driving the cost, at least, to a more reasonable 

rate? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Okay. I appreciate that. 

On the issue of reading, we had a lot of people that had troubles 

with Reading First, and some people that liked Reading First. Tell 

me a little bit about what your philosophy is. What will replace the 

reading emphasis in this administration? Are you setting standards 
42 

and expecting Congress to fill it in from there, or do you have a 

particular proposal for that? 

Secretary DUNCAN. No, what we want is a balanced and comprehensive approach. And we want to fund this at every level—the 

early childhood piece; we want to do stuff at the middle school. And 

we want to look at this at high school, as well. And I worry about 

teenage literacy a lot, as well. 

So we have to look across the board. And this proposal, over $370 

million, we think, addresses the real need out there. And we want 

to be very, very thoughtful about how we do this. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Can you talk to us a little bit about the role of 

teacher performance and so-called merit pay in the president’s and 

your plans? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Well, I will just simply say that there is unprecedented resources on the table to reward excellence. And I 

think we can’t do enough to highlight those principals, those teachers, and those schools that are beating the odds every single day. 

And I think, in so many other professions, excellence is routinely 

rewarded. And, somehow, in education, we have been a little bit 

scared of that. 

So, through the Teacher Incentive Fund that the chairman spoke 

about—that we have over $500 million to put on the table for districts that want to help reward excellence, and support those 

schools that are making a great difference. 

Mr. TIERNEY. So your philosophy is to incent others to come up 

with the ideas locally, as to how they would do that, as opposed to 

imposing a particular model? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Oh, absolutely. There are lots of good models 

out there. 

And so, yes, I think our goal, again, is to really invest in what 

works. But I always think, you know—when I was in Chicago, I 

didn’t think good ideas came from Washington. Now that I am in 

Washington, I know all the ideas don’t come from Washington. 

The best ideas are always going to come from the local level. But 

we want to really reward those folks that are pushing the envelope. 

Let me just say quickly, on this—because it gets a little complicated—what I will say is where you have programs that pit 

teachers against each other—I think those fail. And if we have five 

teachers in a school—and if only one teacher can make more 

money, then that pushes me to close my doors and it does not 

incent the right behavior. 

And so I am really big on collaborative awards. And we created 

a program in Chicago that came from our teachers—where every 

adult in the building—not just the teachers benefited—but the 

principals, security guards, the custodian—the custodians, the 

lunchroom attendants. 

And as you guys—you know, as we visit high-performing schools 

around the country, uniformly, it is every adult in that building 

that is part of that culture. And so the more we really create this 

idea of teamwork and camaraderie, and the—you know, the lunchroom attendants are making sure they are serving good food, and 

making sure the students are eating, and the custodians are making sure the building is immaculate. And the security guards are 
43 

making sure students are safe and they are taking their backpacks 

home in the evening. 

The more we create that sense of teamwork and camaraderie, the 

better we are going to see schools do. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Just to close with one administrative question—I 

am concerned that a number of states are not using the Recovery 

and Reinvestment Acts for Education in the manner in which they 

should. You made a statement in your opening remark about that. 

It seems to me that there are some games being played and, in 

fact, that some are just making themselves and the state budget 

healthy at the expense of not keeping teachers on the payroll, or 

other education personnel, and not filling in those gaps. 

Do you have enough personnel on your staff to actually do the 

kinds of reviews that are necessary to enforce those provisions? 

Secretary DUNCAN. We are going to look at this very, very closely. 

So I do not need an army to do this. We are watching this. We 

are monitoring this very closely. 

And we did two things. And I am a big believer in carrots and 

sticks. We put out very significant monies through the stimulus 

package. We withheld billions of dollars. And if folks are acting in 

bad faith, if folks are gaming, we have a real opportunity not to 

send out that second set of money. 

Second, we have these unprecedented discretionary resources— 

Race to the Top, school-improvement money, teaching—we have all 

these other resources that states would love to have. If states are 

playing games now, they are basically going to disqualify themselves. 

And so this is going to be really interesting to see how creative, 

how innovative, states are, going forward. And we have both carrots and sticks to play. 

And we will see what happens. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Well, thank you. We look forward to working with 

you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. 

Mr. Hunter? 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, great to be with you. 

We share your last name, and my first name. So it is at least 

one thing we have in common here—Duncan. 

I have got a specific question. I am a veteran, a California resident. I went to San Diego State University. And it was probably 

about $1,200 or $1,300 a semester, when I went to school. You 

could work, literally, for the summer, and, you know, pay for your 

fall semester. 

But right now, with our post-9/11 G.I. Bill funding for California 

veterans—they don’t get their G.I. Bill towards any actual tuition 

for private education. They only get for local fees, because state 

schools in California—public institutions for higher education— 

charge only fees. They don’t charge tuition. 

Stanford, for instance—if you were smarter than I am, then you 

went to Stanford. G.I. Bill wouldn’t help you at all, because that 

is private education. 
44 

So I am wondering, on that particular issue, if you have talked 

to the V.A. at all, and if you have any kind of fix. Because there 

have been exceptions for this in the old Pell Grants. Just checking 

to see if there is anything now—if we could fix it permanently so 

that G.I. Bill covers both private and public institutions in California. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. I will absolutely look at that for you. 

Just a question—is that a California-specific issue, or is that a 

national issue? 

Mr. HUNTER. California-specific. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Okay. So I need to better understand that 

one. I will look at it for you. 

Mr. HUNTER. Okay. 

And, second—tying into this—veterans, right now, have higher 

unemployment rate than on average. Guys getting out of the—the 

military—they are 22, 23 years old. They might have been infantry 

or artillery. They might not have learned a skill. 

I see them as being disadvantaged because we are not going after 

them. These are highly motivated, highly disciplined, usually moremature-for-their-age men and women that have served, that have 

sacrificed, that have been under extreme pressure. 

What are we going to do for them to make—to try to get them 

into schools, and bring them into the workforces as educated adults 

that have 4-year or 8-year degrees? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. 

I would love them all to come teach. I want to work very, very 

hard with that population coming back from Iraq and coming back 

from Afghanistan. 

Obviously, they have lots of other interests, but those folks that 

want to come into the classroom—I think they would be phenomenal teachers. I think they are going to be great leaders. You 

said they are mature. They are not going to be scared. You know, 

nothing we can throw at them is going to be tougher than what 

they have seen before. These are great role models—real disciplined—you know, a real sense of mission. 

And so I want to do everything we can on a creative basis. I have 

talked about, you know, Troops to Teachers and alternative certification. That, to me, is a huge pool of talent that I want to try and 

open our doors and get them to become teachers, if that is in their 

heart. 

Mr. HUNTER. The problem is, though, just getting them into 

school, because there is no net to catch them after they get out 

after 4 years. And they are suddenly released back into the civilized world again—they don’t really know what to do. 

They go home sometimes. They are looking for the—you know, 

the help-wanted ads. They don’t realize that their G.I. Bill is going 

to pay for them to go to school. 

And we kind of let them out of that net. And we should be catching them and taking advantage of—— 

Secretary DUNCAN. So we should think together of how we would 

do a better job of proactively reaching out. I think the community 

colleges are a huge opportunity. And due to some of these increases 

in subsidies that—you know, that is almost free for many folks 

today. 
45 

You know, I think the average cost of community college is 

$2,500—$3,000. And the Tuition Tax Credit—you are basically 

going for no money. 

If you get on that track—again, whether it is education or something else, I think the community colleges are a huge, huge opportunity for vets coming back home. And we should think about 

how—like you said, we don’t just let them wander. We reach out 

to them and let them know the opportunities that are out there for 

them. 

Mr. MCKEON. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. HUNTER. Absolutely. 

Mr. MCKEON. Mr. Secretary, this is a V.A. program. We just 

hope that they would reach out to you to help administer—I think, 

because of your experience in getting dollars out to the states—— 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. 

Mr. MCKEON. The way they send the money out, the California 

veterans are penalized because California is the only state that 

does not charge tuition for in-state residents. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. 

Mr. MCKEON. So I think we put a bill in yesterday, and we think 

that we can solve this. But we hope that they will include you in 

the—— 

Secretary DUNCAN. I would love to help. 

That, to me, is like a no-brainer. And it doesn’t make any sense. 

And we should fix it. So whatever I can do—and—— 

Mr. MCKEON. About $6,500 per California veteran would be 

available to our fix, and this would be a good thing to do. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Let me know what I can do to be supportive. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Holt? 

Mr. Holt is going to have the last question. The secretary has 

been very generous with his time. We have held him over. And we 

are going to have votes in a matter of minutes. 

Mr. Holt? 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Mr. Secretary, thank you for coming. 

I must say, many Americans have high hopes riding on you. And 

we wish you every success. 

Speaking before the National Science Teachers Association, you 

said that, ‘‘Science is all about questioning assumptions, testing 

theories, analyzing facts—the basic skills that prepare kids not just 

for the lab, but for life. We are doing kids a disservice if we don’t 

teach them how to ask the tough, challenging questions.’’ I couldn’t 

agree more. 

Under the AARA, you have the $5 billion—approximately $5 billion Race to the Top Funds. I would like to know if you plan to use 

any of those in connection with science education. 

Secondly, following along this, the 2010 budget actually trims the 

funding for the math-science partnerships, slightly. It is way below 

what it was when it was the Eisenhower Funds of a decade back. 

I think it is an essential program. 

I would like to hear what you are going to be doing to increase 

that program, or if you have some other way that teachers are 

going to get the professional development that they need and deserve in science education. 
46 

Third point I would like to ask you to touch on is foreign languages. Foreign-language instruction isn’t easy. It should start 

easy. It should be an integral part of even the elementary curriculum, all the way through—what foreign-language reforms do 

you propose? And along that line, are you going to create an assistant secretary for international and foreign-language study? There 

is now a deputy assistant secretary. 

It might be more than you can cover now. If you can’t cover all 

of that, I would appreciate your getting back to us on those points. 

Secretary DUNCAN. We can get back to you. I will try and do as 

best I can to answer quickly. 

I think—and, again, this is controversial—we have shortages of 

math and science teachers. We have shortages of foreign-language 

teachers. I think we need to pay those teachers more. 

We have been talking about math and science shortages for, I 

don’t know, 25 years—30 years? I would like to stop talking about 

it. It is hard for students to be passionate about something that 

their teachers don’t know. It is hard to teach what you don’t know, 

and so many of our students’ interest in math and science starts 

to peter out in sixth and seventh and eighth grade. Guess why? Because the teachers don’t know the content. 

And so, with these resources, we want to do a number of things. 

I want to pay teachers more in those areas of critical need. I would 

love to send thousands and thousands of teachers back to school to 

learn the math and to learn the science. And we have numerous 

partnerships with universities so they can get the endorsements 

and have the content knowledge. 

I think that is the only way, long term, we can get more students 

interested and passionate in staying in the field. And I think it is 

a real loss for our country in terms of productivity when students 

don’t have these kinds of opportunities. 

So I think we have to look at many pots of money—again, unprecedented, you know, stimulus dollars, unprecedented Title I dollars, Race to the Top Fund—all of these can be used for professional development. These can be used to pay teachers more to 

work in areas of critical need. 

I think we need to be much more thoughtful and creative about 

how we are creating this structure where every child has access to 

a great math teacher, a great science teacher. 

Finally, on foreign language—starting young is absolutely right. 

Starting in high school is late in the game. Starting, you know, 3- 

year-olds and 4-year-olds and 5-year-olds and 6-year-olds—it is just 

like second nature to them. 

So the more we can provide those opportunities early on, the better students are going to do. 

Mr. HOLT. Well, you know, decreasing the funding for the mathscience partnerships, which is the only U.S. Department of Education program that is available across the country, to all schools 

for teacher professional development in science and math—the only 

program that is out there—to reduce it, rather than to double it is 

not the right way to go. 

Maybe you have other things in mind, but I would like the specifics on that. 
47 

And, again, with the Race to the Top Funds—if you could be specific about how you will be using what funds for science education, 

I sure would appreciate hearing it. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Sure. And just to correct the record, we actually didn’t reduce it. We capped it. We level-funded it. But it did 

not get reduced. So it—— 

Mr. HOLT. You know, it is half of what it was when it was the 

Eisenhower Funds a decade ago. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Well, that may be true, but—— 

Mr. HOLT. Teachers need this professional development. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Right. 

And I fully understand. But, again, there are unprecedented discretionary resources on the table. And to have districts, to have 

schools step up and invest in those things that make a difference— 

there has never been this kind—the magnitude of this opportunity. 

And so there is a huge, huge chance for states and districts to 

invest in professional development, and to invest to pay those 

teachers—pick a number—$5,000, $10,000, $15,000 more to teach 

in underserved communities—never had more latitude to do that— 

and when we look for that creativity to come from local districts 

and local schools. 

Mr. HOLT. Great. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being so generous with your time with the committee. I was told to have you 

out of here a half an hour ago. I thought we were going to have 

votes, as we were told by the floor. That didn’t happen. And you 

have stayed beyond that time. 

There are members who have statements that they want to 

make. There are members who have questions. We, obviously, 

would like the opportunity to forward both their statements and 

their questions to you for a response. They didn’t get an opportunity this morning, but they have a burning interest a number of 

these subjects and on the plans of the administration, with respect 

to that. 

So without objection, members will have 14 days to submit additional materials or questions for the hearing record. 

The chair and the ranking member will make sure that those 

materials are forwarded to the secretary for a response. 

Without objection, this hearing will stand adjourned. Thank you 

again. 

[The statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Vernon J. Ehlers, a Representative in 

Congress From the State of Michigan 

Chairman Miller, thank you for holding this important hearing today on President 

Obama’s education agenda. 

I appreciate Secretary Duncan’s testimony on the importance of ‘‘ensuring that 

our children and young adults have the education they need to ensure they enter 

the workforce with the knowledge and skills they need to be successful and to help 

rebuild our economy.’’ I know that Secretary Duncan understands the importance 

of science education. When he served as CEO of the Chicago Public School District, 

Secretary Duncan had an exceptional science teacher, Michael Lach, helping to design the math and science curriculum. Mike previously worked in my office as an 

Einstein fellow, and understands the unique intersections between science content 
48 

knowledge, curricular development and legislation. I certainly hope that Mike still 

has your ear—he provided me with good advice and our nation would benefit from 

his counsel on science education policy. 

More than 10 years ago, I led the effort to develop a new, sensible, coherent longrange science and technology policy for our nation. The Committee on Science published my efforts, Unlocking Our Future: Toward a New National Science Policy, in 

September 1998. This report found that extensive changes are needed to improve 

math and science education in the United States, and many of its findings are still 

relevant today. I am pleased to present Secretary Duncan with a copy of this report, 

and would be delighted to discuss it in detail. 

My work and a host of other well regarded studies have concluded that an investment in teacher professional development is sorely needed to make fundamental 

changes to our students’ understanding of math and science. 

Before the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), Congress provided substantially 

more funding for math and science teacher professional development through the 

Eisenhower program than we have had since 2001. While Title II, Part A—the State 

Grants for Improving Teacher Quality—may be used for professional development, 

a 2005 U.S. Department of Education report found that the majority of districts use 

these funds for class size reduction. Many science teachers report little, if any, funds 

available for professional development activities. NCLB required schools to begin 

science testing in the 2007-08 school year, and our teachers must be equipped with 

the tools to effectively teach math and science. 

The Math and Science Partnerships program is an innovative, proven program designed to improve teacher content knowledge and teaching skills in math and 

science subjects. Through formula grants to every state, the Math and Science Partnerships provide crucial teacher professional development and teacher in-service 

training by linking school districts with university mathematics, science and engineering departments. As a result of the Math and Science Partnerships program, 

our students’ math and science skills will be strengthened. 

Unfortunately, President Obama’s fiscal year 2010 budget requests level funding 

for the Math & Science Partnerships program. For years, Representative Holt and 

I have fought to increase funding for this valuable teacher professional development 

program. I find it very disheartening that the President’s budget does not request 

adequate resources for this program, and hope that this request will be reconsidered. 

On a related topic, I am pleased that President Obama’s budget requests funds 

to ‘‘support activities to strengthen States’ content and achievement standards and 

assessments, such as activities to develop college- and career-ready standards and 

assessments’’. It is absolutely key that science be treated on par with reading and 

math in any update of the No Child Left Behind Act. Last Congress, I introduced 

the Science Accountability Act to hold states and schools accountable for student 

learning in science, and I am reintroducing this bill today. Also, I strongly support 

voluntary, national math and science education content standards, and, in June, I 

plan to reintroduce the Standards to Provide Educational Achievement for Kids 

(SPEAK) Act, which provides financial incentives to states to adopt world-class, national math and science standards. 

Finally, I look forward to working with President Obama, Secretary Duncan, and 

the Members of this Committee on reforming the No Child Left Behind Act. This 

law is overdue for reauthorization, and the lack of legislative action greatly concerns 

me. We must update this law with improvements to math and science education to 

unlock the future for our children. 

[Questions submitted and the responses follow:] 

[VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL], 

Washington, DC, May 27, 2009. 

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 May 20, 2009 hearing 

of the Committee on Education and Labor on ‘‘The Obama Administration’s Education Agenda.’’ A number of Representatives have asked that you respond in writing to the following questions: 

REPRESENTATIVE DONALD PAYNE (D–NJ)

1. Mr. Secretary, I am concerned that the Administration’s budget eliminates 

funding for a program that has produced tremendous results for teachers nation-
49 

wide, Ready to Teach. A current recipient of Ready to Teach funds is PBS 

TeacherLine. PBS TeacherLine has been the source of high-quality, online fully facilitated professional development since 2000, serving more than 55,000 educators 

across the United States in the past four years alone. With a recent focus on coaching and mentoring, PBS TeacherLine created Peer Connection, a field-tested, highperformance suite of collaboration and communication tools created to strengthen 

and streamline instructional coaches’ work with the teachers they’re supporting. 

This appears to be an innovative practice that should be encouraged by this administration. Can I get your commitment that you will take a closer look at this program and evaluate it on its merits and success? 

2. As you think about what is needed to help students succeed academically—particularly those living in poverty- what are some of the innovations that have been 

successful that you would like to advance nationally? 

3. How important do you think ‘‘added time’’ or ‘‘expanded learning time’’ is to 

helping close the achievement gap? 

4. Do you support flexibility in how federal dollars can be spent to meet the needs 

of struggling students? For example, using funds like those designed for Supplemental Education Services to support more comprehensive approach to add learning 

time for students? 

5. How can federal dollars, such as those in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and in the President’s Fiscal Year 2010 budget, be used to support expanded learning time? 

REPRESENTATIVE BOBBY SCOTT (D–VA)

1. Given the disparity between college retention and graduation rates between 

low-income and high-income students, how does the Administration plan to incorporate into its retention strategy, longstanding programs like TRIO, which successfully equip students with the academic, social, and cultural skills needed to thrive 

in institutions of higher education? 2. The budget requests $20 million in loan subsidies to guarantee up to $178 million in loans under the Historically Black Colleges and Universities Capital Financing Program. To what extent will this meet the demand for such loans? Are there 

institutions in the pipeline with projects waiting to be financed? How many institutions do you anticipate will obtain loans in 2010? 

3. There seems to be varying views on the definition of a ‘‘quality’’ teacher and 

whether this translates to being an ‘‘effective’’ teacher. What are some of your and 

the Department’s ideas on addressing this concern and ensuring that classrooms are 

not filled with paper teachers (teachers that are qualified on paper because of an 

advanced degree or etc.) who are not effective and can’t engage our youth in ways 

that are both beneficial and conducive to their learning? 

4. Currently, Title I regulations do not provide specific graduation rate goals or 

growth targets. I have introduced legislation, the Every Student Counts Act, to address the dropout crisis that hasn’t been fixed under the No Child Left Behind 

model. The Every Student Counts Act establishes an annual graduation rate goal 

of 90 percent and a growth target of 3 percent improvement annually and supports 

‘‘growth models’’ of accountability by setting annual benchmarks based on a school’s 

own starting point. Do you support this bill? 

REPRESENTATIVE LYNN WOOLSEY (D–CA)

1. As you look at the Race to the Top funds and other programs that incentivize 

innovation, how is the Administration planning to work with states and school districts to make sure more girls and minorities are becoming interested in and doing 

well in math and science classes? 

2. How do you envision the improvement of child care quality fitting into the proposed Early Learning Challenge Fund? 

3. How can we work together to ensure that all forms of early childhood care and 

education are receiving access to the Early Learning Challenge funds and the assistance to improve quality for our nation’s children? 

4. Historically, the Department of Health and Human Services has had much of 

the jurisdiction over early childhood programs, particularly child care. How do you 

plan to work with the Department of Health and Human Services to improve the 

coordination and delivery of services to children under the age of five? Specifically, 

In light of the Early Learning Challenge Grants proposal, how do you plan to coordinate the development and implementation of this proposal with HHS? 

REPRESENTATIVE CAROLYN MCCARTHY (D–NY)

1. What is going to be the new name for the No Child Left Behind Law? 
50 

2. Why does the department think it is a good idea to zero out the State grants 

for Safe and Drug Free Schools (SDFS) and transfer a portion of that funding to 

the national programs? 

3. If the Department believes that the SDFS state grant program is indeed ineffective and the SDFS National Programs are considered effective, why would the 

Administration not transfer all of the $295 million currently in the SDFS state 

grant budget to National Programs instead of creating a net reduction of $184 million dollar for school safety? 

4. We have seen funding drop from $650 million for SDFS at the time of the 

Colombine shootings and to the current $295 million over the past decade. Furthermore, we do not have accurate data on incidents that occur in schools and that the 

only national data we have on school violence comes from the surveys found in the 

indicators report. Without good information we cannot help schools that need it the 

most. That is why I have introduced the SAVE Act. What are the Department’s 

long-term plans for keeping our students safe? 

5. In March 2007, I sent the Department a letter (attached hereto) outlining my 

concerns that the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools has not been collecting and 

does not possess data as required under ESEA Section 4141 which reauthorized the 

Gun Free Schools Act (GFSA). Specifically, States are required to report to the Secretary a description of circumstances surrounding any expulsions including the 

name of the school concerned, the number of students expelled, and the type of firearms involved. We have an obligation to keep America’s schools gun free. The goal 

of this measure was to remove firearms from all public schools in the United States 

by requiring schools districts receiving federal funds to adopt a gun-free school policy and expel for one year students who carry a gun to school. As lawmakers and 

concerned parents, in order to know whether the goals of the law are being met it 

is critical to have accurate and available data collected as required by the law. In 

November 2007, eight months after my letter was sent, I received a response from 

the Department (attached hereto). It said, in part, ‘‘We acknowledge that a series 

of school shootings that have occurred during the past decade have heightened the 

public’s concern about school safety and the presence of firearms and other weapons 

in schools. Based on the changing climate since the Department’s initial implementation of GFSA reporting requirements, our review of the GFSA and your request, 

we will initiate the steps necessary to begin to collect information from States about 

the names of schools where a student was found to have brought a firearm from 

school.’’ Can you please advise the status of these steps? Is the Department collecting this information? If yes, where might I find the information? 

6. As you know, two middle school students—Carl Walker-Hoover of Springfield, 

MA and Jaheem Harrera of DeKalb County, GA—committed suicide within the past 

month and a half because of anti-gay bullying and harassment. What steps is the 

Education Department taking to provide states, local districts and schools with the 

guidance and resources they need to prevent this type of bullying and harassment, 

and to intervene when it occurs? 

7. Mr. Secretary, I am concerned that Administration’s budget eliminates funding 

for a program that has produced tremendous results for New York teachers, Ready 

To Teach. Ready to Teach funds VITAL, an initiative spearheaded by my local public television station, Thirteen/WNET, that leverages public television’s high-quality 

educational programming to create standards-aligned digital content for classroom 

use. Will you work with me to continue this successful partnership with public television stations and to increase their capacity to serve students and teachers nationwide? 

8. Would the Administration consider allocating a portion of the ‘‘$2.5 billion for 

a new five-year Access and Completion Incentive Fund to support innovative state 

efforts to help low-income students succeed and complete their college education,’’ 

to expand existing and successful TRIO and Project GRAD programs so that we can 

expand programs that actually work while at the same time seeking out innovative 

programs? 

REPRESENTATIVE RUSH HOLT (D–NJ)

1. Under the ARRA you have a $4.35 billion Race to the Top Fund, what plans 

do you have to use that fund to improve STEM and foreign language education? 

2. While science is being tested, only reading and mathematics assessments are 

currently counted in AYP. What are your views on the inclusion of science in AYP? 

3. Given your statement that ‘‘science education is central to our broad effort to 

restore American leadership in Education worldwide’’ will you work to increase 

funding for the Mathematics and Science partnerships program and restore it to its 

pre NCLB funding levels? 
51 

4. The reauthorization of the Higher Education Act established a Deputy Assistant Secretary for International and Foreign Language Education, will you elevate 

this to a full Assistant Secretary position under the authority you have? 

5. What plans do you have to improve foreign language instruction in elementary 

schools, and what foreign language reforms would you want to see included in ESEA 

reauthorization? 

REPRESENTATIVE SUSAN DAVIS (D–CA)

1. Please share some specifics on what performance-based rewards will look like 

through the Teacher Incentive Fund. 

2. What are some of the obstacles to implementing performance-based rewards 

and how does the Department plan to overcome these obstacles? 

3. How will the performance pay rewards interact with No Child Left Behind and 

its requirements, such as Adequate Yearly Progress and Highly Qualified Teachers? 

4. What opportunities do you see to build a new structure for successful principals 

and strong school leadership under the Obama Administration? 

5. What will the new National Teacher Recruitment program look like and how 

will it bring new, quality teachers to the profession? 

6. How important is the issue of tuition refunds and loan forgiveness for service 

members who are activated to the Department? 

7. How is the Department addressing the unique needs of service members and 

military veterans attending college? What tools do you need from Congress to better 

meet these needs? 

8. Given that programs such as ED’s Mentoring Programs are making progress 

toward closing the gap of 15 million children without a mentor and connecting 

young people with a solid role model, what can we do to improve the program—perhaps through a more rigorous RFP process or other means—rather than end it as 

recommended by the President’s Budget? 

9. What type of research has been done to measure some of the other potentially 

positive effects of ED’s Mentoring Programs, such as the happiness and confidence 

that can come from a healthy relationship with a responsible adult? 

REPRESENTATIVE RAUL GRIJALVA (D–AZ)

1. Given that Latino students are a significant and rapidly growing segment of 

the student population, are there plans to make a stronger effort to appoint Latinos 

and Latinas to positions in the Department of Education? 

2. After seeing the Recovery Act and the President’s FY10 budget, the Hispanic 

community has been concerned that the new administration has not prioritized 

English language learners, or the Latino student population. How does the President’s education agenda specifically plan on addressing the needs of Latino and ELL 

students? 

3. The President’s budget proposed to eliminate the Even Start Family Literacy 

program. If funding for this program is eliminated, this will effect 59,000 parents 

and children struggling with illiteracy and poverty, more than half (53%) of whom 

are Latino. How will the President’s education agenda ensure that families, particularly Latino families who have low-literacy levels, have access to essential services, 

like those provided by the Even Start program (GED, ESL classes for adults and 

early learning programs for young children)? 

4. The President has proposed State Early Learning Challenge Grants to improve 

the quality of early care and education systems, as a major part of his education 

platform. Less than half, or 43%, of Hispanic children ages zero-to-three attend a 

center-based early care and education (ECE) program, compared to 66% of Black 

children and 59% of White children. How will these grants be structured to ensure 

that 1) Latino students have more access to these programs, and 2) be designed to 

meet the unique needs of young English language learners and their families? 

5. Latinos are the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. student population and represent the future of the U.S. workforce. The passage of the ‘‘DREAM Act’’ will increase educational attainment among Latinos in the United States, affording them 

adequate preparation for work. In turn, the nation’s economy will thrive. Is the 

‘‘DREAM Act’’ an immediate priority for the new administration? 

6. Farmworker migrant and seasonal worker students are some of the most disadvantaged and at-risk students in the country. They have one of the highest dropout rates and encounter tremendous obstacles in completing high school and pursuing higher education. The High School Equivalency (HEP) /College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) have been successful in helping to close the access and completion gaps for many low-income, minority farmworker migrant and seasonal worker students. After years of level funding and the loss of 20 HEP/CAMP programs 
52 

since 2004, I was pleased that the President proposes a $2.5 million increase for the 

HEP/CAMP program from $34.16 million in FY 2009 to $36.61 million for FY 2010. 

The Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) recognized the importance of the 

HEP/CAMP program by increasing its authorization level $75 million. Can we expect the Administration’s continued support of the HEP/CAMP program in the form 

of increased funding proposals in the future? 

7. The President has also proposed a drop-out prevention initiative that promises 

innovation and targets those schools with the highest drop-out rates. How is this 

initiative different from the Bush Administration’s drop-out prevention initiative 

under NCLB? What role will community-based organizations have in this initiative? 

8. No plan to address the high school dropout crisis will be effective without an 

adequate middle grade intervention to aid the most troubled feeder middle schools 

and elementary schools of the most troubled high schools. In what way will the high 

school reform proposals include the middle grades? 

9. I am concerned about the problem of bullying faced by students, including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students in the country. What action is the Department of Education taking to address bullying in the nation’s schools? 

REPRESENTATIVE MAZIE HIRONO (D–HI)

1. According to 2006 data, there are three dropout factories in my district and five 

total in the state of Hawaii. I share your concern about low performing schools and 

want to know how best to help them. I recognize that dropout factories are not just 

a high school problem, as there are other factors in the elementary and middle 

school years affecting what happens to students in high school. When states submit 

applications for ARRA grants, including for State Fiscal Stabilization Funds and 

Race to the Top funds, how does the Department of Education plan to evaluate state 

applications with respect to dropout factories? How specific will your actions be in 

pushing states to address the problem of dropout factories? 

2. There are critical times in a child’s development when positive intervention 

makes a real difference. We know that one of these times where resources matter 

is the preschool years. I have a bill, the PRE-K Act (H.R. 702) that would create 

a grant program to support states’ efforts in providing high quality early education. 

What, in your view, are the other critical years when attention and resources would 

make a difference? Do the President’s programmatic and funding requests reflect 

this approach of investing in the critical points in a child’s development? 

REPRESENTATIVE JASON ALTMIRE (D–PA)

1. In the U.S. Department of Education Budget Highlights, there is a focus on col- lege completion which supports ‘‘$2.5 billion for a new five-year Access and Completion Incentive Fund to support innovative state efforts to help low-income students 

succeed and complete their college education.’’ As you are aware, there are presently 

in place TRIO programs that are designed to help low-income students succeed and 

complete their college education. These programs do a great job at accomplishing 

these goals—but the programs are severely underfunded. Would the Administration 

consider allocating a portion of this $2.5 billion to expand existing and very successful TRIO programs so that we can expand programs that actually work while at the 

same time seeking out new and innovative programs? 

2. One issue that arises from the President’s budget proposal is that currently foreign schools are only eligible for the FFEL Program. Will the President’s legislative 

proposal will ensure that foreign schools also be made eligible for the Direct Loan 

Program and that appropriate steps are taken to ensure that they are able to participate on behalf of their American students? 

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL HARE (D–IL)

1. In the Administration’s education budget proposal, there seems to be a policy 

shift away from formula grants (cuts to Title I, Part A and Education Technology 

and the elimination of Safe and Drug Free Schools State grants) to competitive 

grants (new Title I Early Childhood Grants, the High School Graduation Initiative, 

new monies for national programs under Safe and Drug Free Schools). I am afraid 

that this shift will represent a loss of funding to rural school districts that do not 

have the resources to apply for competitive grants. What steps is your department 

going to take to ensure that rural school districts are equitably funded, especially 

under the President’s new proposals? 

2. As a policy, Congress targets dollars under Title I to concentrations of poverty 

under the argument that it is harder to serve large groups of poor students. However, under the Title I funding formula, we define concentrations of poverty as percentages or numbers, whichever is higher. This results in larger less- poor school 
53 

districts getting more money per poor child then a smaller, higher-poverty school 

districts. What recommendations would you make to instill a greater sense of equity 

when funding children in poverty? 

3. Mr. Secretary, soon I will reintroduce the Positive Behavior for Effective 

Schools Act, which opens up federal resources to school districts that want to establish or expand the use of PBIS (Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports) and 

provides teachers with training to effectively manage classrooms using PBIS strategies. As you may know, President Obama introduced this same bill in the Senate. 

Do you support this legislation and if so, is the administration committed to making 

this a priority? 

REPRESENTATIVE JOE COURTNEY (D–CT)

1. Does ARRA require states to adopt their 2010 budgets before becoming eligible 

to receive funding? 

2. In your testimony you stated that states that show progress in meeting the 

goals (‘‘the four pillars’’) of the SFSF will be able to qualify for the Race to the Top 

funding. Is it correct to assume that states who are dilatory in applying for SFSF 

and demonstrating compliance with SFSF’s goals will suffer in the competitive grant 

process set forth in Race to the Top? 

3. Can SFSF be used to supplant state fiscal year 2009 expenditures within the 

state budget? 

4. Is there a way a state can account for state fiscal stabilization funds as nonfederal funds? If so, how can a state apply for permission to do that? It appears that 

this is possible under section 14012 (d) of the ARRA. 

5. Does the ARRA allow use of state fiscal stabilization funds to supplant current 

education expenditures at the local level to achieve the Maintenance of Effort for 

additional Title I and IDEA funds? If so, how can localities apply for permission to 

do so? 

REPRESENTATIVE JARED POLIS (D–CO)

1. Both you and the president have repeatedly called for federal investment in innovative programs with a proven track record of helping schools meet high standards and close the achievement gap. President Obama has called on states to lift 

caps on charter schools and reform their charter school rules so that excellent charter schools can be replicated. The President’s budget includes a 24% increase for 

Charter School Grants, which is an important first step towards fulfilling his pledge 

to double funding for this program. However, the program’s focus is on new schools 

rather than scaling up existing successful models to serve more students. What role 

will the replication and expansion of high-quality charter schools play in the Administrations’ education reform agenda, and how do you envision such an investment 

taking place both prior to and as a part of No Child Left Behind reauthorization? 

2. Under the Recovery Act, charter schools in some states are facing difficulties 

accessing the new funding. However, the Administration has made it clear that the 

fair and equal treatment of charter schools, which I am assuming is the case both 

with the recovery funds and other federal funding, will be a critical component of 

future ARRA funding. Could you discuss this issue—the role of how charters are 

treated under ARRA—in more detail? Will the Department hold states accountable 

for their treatment of charter schools during the second round of State Fiscal Stabilization Funding and the Race to the Top funds? How about federal funding in 

general in the long term longer? 

3. Mr. Secretary, in April the nation grappled with the horrific suicides of two 11- 

year-old children, Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover in Massachusetts and Jaheem Herrera in Georgia both of whom had been relentlessly bullied and teased with antigay epithets. These deaths were needless and devastating to their families, friends 

and communities. This year, on the National Day of Silence you stated that ‘‘we 

must all acknowledge our collective role and responsibility in preventing student 

deaths and ensuring that our schools remain safe havens of learning.’’ What action 

is the Department of Education taking to combat bullying and promote tolerance in 

our nation’s schools? 

4. As the founder and superintendent of a charter school serving immigrant 

youth, I have seen firsthand how we waste talent and potential in this country by 

denying high school graduates the opportunity to pursue a college education because 

of their immigration status. These kids have been raised and educated in this country and are as American as anyone else, but for too long they have had their dreams 

shattered by an education system that ignores their good grades and hard work. 

Educational opportunity is a right, not a privilege, and access to higher education 

is the key for both individual success and our nation’s economic growth and pros-
54 

perity. Some try to describe the American DREAM Act as immigration policy, but 

I strongly believe that it’s fundamentally an issue of educational opportunity. President Obama was a co-sponsor of this legislation both as a State and an U.S. Senator 

and during a visit to a school in my district a year ago he reiterated his support. 

Can you please share with us your views on this critical issue? 

5. According to the Census Bureau estimates, nearly 1 in 5 adults in the U.S. 

speaks a language other than English at home, and more than 17 million speak 

English less than ‘‘very well.’’ While demand for English language instruction has 

dramatically increased, federal funding for English Speakers of Other Languages 

(ESOL) programs has actually declined. A recent survey among 176 ESOL providers 

showed that 57.4 percent maintained waiting lists, ranging from a few weeks to 

more than 3 years. Given the increased demand for adult ESOL programs, and the 

current economic crisis, an investment in adult education is needed now more than 

ever. What efforts will the Administration take to help address these issues, and 

help build and maintain a robust adult education, language, and literacy system in 

the U.S.? 

REPRESENTATIVE DINA TITUS (D–NV)

1. In Nevada, we have a serious problem with high school completion. In 2006, 

the Department of Education reported a graduation rate for Nevada of 56%, and 

others have put the city of Las Vegas at an even lower rate of 44%—both far below 

the national average of about 75%. In my Congressional District there were 4 dropout factories and 5 with graduation rates lower than 70%. Nevada has been particularly hard-hit by the economic downturn and is facing unemployment rates that are 

the highest they have been in 25 years, so the low graduation rates are even more 

disturbing since we know that students without a high school diploma will find it 

difficult to find jobs and will earn less when they do. I know you are concerned 

about this issue. I was heartened by your comments this morning, encouraged by 

the increases in your and the President’s budget, and intrigued by the recent accounts of your conversation with students themselves about why they drop out. You 

said in a recent interview, ‘‘I think we know many of the answers.’’ Your 2010 budget request includes a $1 billion increase for Title I School Improvement Grants. The 

budget summary states, ‘‘This request reflects the Administration’s determination to 

take immediate action to begin addressing the factors that contribute to the high 

school dropout crisis in American education.’’ You started to give us some details 

earlier and were cut off, so I’d ask you to please continue and elaborate on the details of how the School Improvement Grants will help improve our nation’s and my 

state’s graduation rates? 

REPRESENTATIVE HOWARD P ‘‘BUCK MCKEON’’ (R–CA)

1. I’m aware that the Department has decided to revise the Title I regulation 

issued in 2002 to allow those school districts in need of improvement to serve as 

eligible providers of Supplemental Educational Services (SES). The last Administration implemented a pilot program allowing a number of districts to offer SES in conjunction with implementing parental notification and awareness provisions. Are 

these parental options going to be part of your changes to the districts in need of 

improvement regulation? And, if not, what protections are you going to put in place 

to ensure that students are not forced into district programs? And what recommendations would you make so that all providers have equal access to collecting 

and disseminating information to ensure maximum parental choice? 

2. One of the keys to successful implementation of the supplemental educational 

services provision is communicating to parents the availability of these services in 

ways that are easily understandable. Can you detail how some districts, including 

your experience in Chicago, have made strides in getting the word out to parents 

about the availability of both the district-sponsored service and the service of other 

providers? 

3. I am aware that the Department has notified States and school districts that 

it will entertain requests for waivers to certain SES provisions included in Title I 

of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. What criteria are you basing those waivers on? And 

would you consider granting a waiver for SES in districts where there are more kids 

eligible for SES than could be funded under the 20 percent set-aside? 

4. I know that you have talked a lot about innovation and granting States additional flexibility in how they implement several provisions under ESEA. To this end, 

has the Department worked with States and local educational agencies to encourage 

them to submit performance agreements under the State and Local Flexibility Demonstration Programs? Also, would you support proposals to increase the percentage 
55 

of funds that States and local school districts could transfer under the law’s transferability option? 

5. As you know, one of the most common challenges that local school districts 

have had when trying to help schools that are in need of improvement is that local 

collective bargaining agreements restrict the assignment of more experienced teachers, the expeditious dismissal of teachers who cannot demonstrate effectiveness, and 

reconstitution of school staff. How should Federal law tackle this problem? Should 

we repeal or make exceptions to the collective bargaining language included in 

ESEA? 

6. Do you support alternate routes to teacher certification that maintain high 

standards for subject matter knowledge but remove many of the hoops and hurdles 

that I believe keep many promising individuals out of teaching? 

7. In your opinion, do you think that teacher colleges of education are doing an 

adequate job of preparing teachers for the realities of today’s classroom—diverse 

population, special needs students, and content standards set by ESEA? If not, what 

are your suggestions for improving pre-service training for our nation’s teachers? 

8. Recent research, including research from former President Clinton chief-of-staff 

John Podesta’s organization, has shown that student achievement goes up when 

principals have the freedom to reward good teachers. On the other hand, research 

has also shown that additional credentials, including National Board certification, 

bears little to no relationship to improved student performance. So, rather than giving each National Board-certified teacher $10,000 as some proposals would do, 

wouldn’t it be wiser to invest that money in incentive pay structures that have a 

track record of success? 

9. I’ve seen a quote from you many times, including recently in Time Magazine, 

when you stated that, ‘‘What NCLB did was, they were very loose on the goals— 

50 states could create their own goals and 50 different goalposts, and [what] that 

led to was a real dumbing down of those goals. What they’re very tight on is how 

you get there. I think what we need to do is fundamentally reverse that—I think 

we need to be really tight on goals and have these common college-ready international benchmark standards that we’re all aiming for, but then be much looser 

in how you let folks get there.’’ What do you mean by being ‘‘looser on how you let 

folks get there’’? Does that mean delaying State accountability or pushing off the 

timeline? How do your comments compare to the fact that local educational agencies 

have a significant amount of flexibility into what interventions they implement for 

their failing schools once they are identified as needing corrective action or restructuring? Also, if you believe that State standards in reading and math are too low 

and that States need to implement common standards that are high standards, how 

are you going to address the complaints that we have heard from States that it was 

too hard to get all kids on grade level to what you call ‘‘dumbed down goals’’? 

10. I’ve heard that there has been some discussion at the Department that the 

2014 timeline will be ‘‘dealt with’’ in the Race to the Top application, with the implication that if States agree to raise their standards, the Department will give them 

additional time on accountability beyond the 2014 deadline. Can you elaborate on 

this point? And if so, under what authority would you do this? 

11. In your testimony, you mentioned that all staff, including janitors and lunch 

attendants, in a school should receive awards under the proposed performance pay 

system. Is there any scientific research available that demonstrates that including 

these other staff members in the performance pay system will help increase student 

achievement? 

12. The Administration’s budget includes a new Striving Readers program that 

will provide competitive grants to local educational agencies targeted toward helping 

students in elementary schools learn to read. In the development of this plan and 

the planning application process, will school districts be required to ensure that 

their programs include instruction in phonemic awareness? Will they be required to 

ensure that the programs include instruction in phonics? 

13. Does the Administration have any plans to make changes to the 1% or the 

2% rules, which allow States to hold students with disabilities to alternative or 

modified achievement standards under ESEA? 

14. It is a known fact that IDEA is underfunded at the Federal level. By Congress 

not meeting its commitment to fully fund 40 percent of the national average per 

pupil expenditure, local districts have picked up the cost burden. When Congress 

passed IDEA in 2004, we hoped that one day we would meet our commitment to 

fully fund special education and knew we needed to give local school districts some 

flexibility to reclaim their local dollars they have been using to cover the shortfall. 

Therefore, we included language in the law that districts would be allowed to reclaim their local dollars in an amount equal to 50 percent of their Federal increase, 

provided they use those dollars for educational purposes. The funding included in 
56 

the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act or ARRA is one of the first real opportunities for school districts to utilize this flexibility. However, it has come to my attention that the Office of Special Education Programs is taking a restrictive view 

and denying the ability of school districts to use this flexibility. When we passed 

IDEA in 2004, we included report language that said States had to ‘‘meet an exceptionally high standard to prevent local education agencies from exercising local control.’’ What basis is the Department using to deny the use of this flexibility to thousands of school districts? 

15. I committed to helping families and individuals with disabilities have the opportunity to lead fulfilling, productive lives. Like you, I realize the importance of 

fully funding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and improving 

special education, related services for children with disabilities. We also agree on 

the importance of accountability for the academic achievement of these children 

through the No Child Left Behind Act. As the 2010 reauthorization of IDEA looms, 

what are your ideas to provide greater access to the general education curriculum, 

increased inclusion in the general education classroom and improved postsecondary 

education and other transition opportunities for all children with disabilities, including those with intellectual disabilities? 

16. You said you’d like to set a goal to turn around 1,000 low-performing schools 

a year for each of the next five years. While this goal is admirable, how can a local 

educational agency that wants to close low-performing schools and re-open them 

with new principals and teachers do that in light of collective bargaining agreements and other regulations in place? 

17. President Obama has called charter schools ‘‘one of the places where innovation occurs’’ and he has called on States to lift caps on the number of charter 

schools. In your testimony before the Committee, you stated that the Department 

would ask States to detail whether they had charter school caps in place in their 

Race to the Top applications. Will the Department provide those States that do not 

have charter school caps with a priority in accessing funding under the new program? 

18. For the current school year (2008-2009), how many States are in compliance 

with the Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT) definition under ESEA? What impact has 

the HQT definition had on recruiting high quality teachers around the country, including recruiting special education teachers? What impact has the HQT definition 

had on the ability of public charter schools to recruit teachers? What impact has 

the HQT definition had on alternative certification programs? 

19. Does the Administration support Adjunct Teacher Corps programs, including 

the new program authorized under the Higher Education Opportunity Act? 

20. The budget proposes major changes to the Perkins loan program, transforming 

it into a tool to encourage colleges to control costs. It reminds me of a proposal I 

offered several years ago to use the campus-based aid programs—including Perkins—to achieve that same goal of holding down costs. Unfortunately, my plan was 

rejected by the higher education community. I hope you have better luck than I did, 

and to that end, I have two specific questions. First, will all sectors—including proprietary—be eligible for this program? And second, can you share some specifics 

about how this will work, how you think it will bring costs down, and what other 

plans you may have to get colleges to control their costs? 

21. In the President’s 2010 budget proposal, there is a great deal of emphasis 

placed on early childhood programs, including new programs that would be implemented by the Department of Education. As you know, the Federal government already has a number of different early childhood programs (69 identified by a 2001 

GAO report), the largest of which are based at the Department of Health and 

Human Services. I am concerned that, by creating additional and separate Federal 

early childhood programs, we would simply be adding to an already fragmented system of early childhood assistance at the Federal level. Would the new programs at 

the Department of Education take the place of any of the existing Federal programs? 

22. Would the new early childhood education programs proposed in the President’s budget be required to work within the existing Head Start standards, updated in the reauthorization bill that passed last Congress? Will these new programs be targeted towards low-income kids or will all students qualify, including 

students from wealthy families? 

23. According to the Administration’s 2010 budget, the proposed Early Learning 

Challenge Fund would provide competitive grants to State educational agencies in 

order for those agencies to establish pathways to high quality early childhood education. We have yet to see a legislative proposal for this proposed Fund, but some 

of the activities seem to duplicate those being conducted by State Advisory Councils 

on Early Childhood Education and Care that were authorized under the Head Start 
57 

Act. How do these two proposals differ? And if they are different, how does the Department propose to increase coordination between HHS? 

24. The Administration’s proposal would seem to funnel an overwhelming majority of its early childhood education funding through local educational agencies, some 

of which are deemed at failure of meeting State standards in reading and math 

under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Will schools that currently fail 

to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) be considered as eligible entities to provide 

early childhood education? 

25. Early childhood education has historically been a private endeavor. Would the 

Administration’s new early childhood proposals allow the private industry, including 

community-based providers, to maintain their role in State provided early childhood 

education? 

REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS PETRI (R–WI)

1. A recent investigation by the New America Foundation found that Nelnet, in 

its November 2006 response to the Inspector General’s audit of Nelnet, cited three 

program reviews of other 9.5 claimants as justification for not reimbursing its own 

illegal claims. In 2007, Secretary Spellings and Undersecretary Sara Martinez Tucker cited the Nelnet response in making a decision to allow Nelnet to keep its illegal 

claims. Now, however, the program reviews have been discredited by the IG in the 

April 2009 audit of Federal Student Aid. Have you asked the Attorney General to 

review the Nelnet settlement? 

2. Have any other 9.5 claimants made reimbursements? Please provide me with 

an update of all 9.5 payments, reimbursements, and any other 9.5 transactions for 

federal fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2008. 

3. The IG’s new, April 2009 audit describes how FSA/Financial Partners’ program 

reviews were mishandled in that they were not reviewed by the Department’s Office 

of General Counsel. A Kentucky 2006 9.5 program review, however, cites a ‘‘legal 

opinion provided’’ but apparently it is from a source other than the Department. 

Would you please provide a copy of the legal opinion cited in that program review? 

REPRESENTATIVE MARK SOUDER (R–IN)

1. How does the Administration plan to stem the need for drug treatment in the 

future by eliminating prevention efforts such as the State Grants portion of the Safe 

and Drug Free Schools and Communities (SDFSC) program, one of the only prevention programs that exist in the federal government? Such cuts would decimate the 

school-based prevention infrastructures currently in place, leave the vast majority 

of our nation’s schools and students with no drug and violence prevention programming at all, and provide large grants to a very small number of recipients that 

would not be sustainable over time. What do you plan to do to correct this? 

2. I have heard that the Administration is committed to streamlining the FAFSA, 

a priority that I strongly endorse. As you know, the FAFSA currently contains a 

question about convictions for prior drug offenses, which is used to enforce the drugfree student loan law enacted by Congress with bipartisan support in 1998 [HEA 

Section 484(r)]. The purpose of this law is to act as a deterrent, so that when pressured to use drugs, college students can respond that they don’t want to lose their 

student loans. Although even drug legalization groups have admitted that the question is the ‘‘only obvious mechanism for enforcing [the law]’’, in the past, there have 

been efforts to remove this question from the FAFSA, which would effectively kill 

the statute by drastically reducing awareness and significantly weakening its ability 

to deter drug use. Is the administration committed to maintaining the drug question 

on the FAFSA and continuing to enforce the drug-free student loan law? 

REPRESENTATIVE VERNON EHLERS (R–MI)

1. According to OSTP (the Office of Science and Technology Policy), STEM education funding at the U.S. Department of Education is $87 million (or 10 percent) 

less than fiscal year 2009 in the President’s budget request. I am confused about 

the conflicting messages from the Obama Administration on support for STEM education and the America COMPETES Act, particularly at the K-12 levels. Why the 

discrepancy between the message and the fiscal year 2010 budget request? 

2. President Obama has recognized the need to improve our students’ readiness 

for the jobs of the future. However, the U.S. Department of Education’s fiscal year 

2010 budget requests level funding for the Math & Science Partnerships program. 

For years, Representatives Holt and I have fought to increase funding for this valuable teacher professional development program at the Department of Education. I 

find it very disheartening that the President’s budget does not request adequate resources for this program. Please comment on how, under the President’s proposal, 
58 

current teachers will be equipped with the math and science skills needed to help 

our nation’s future workers succeed. 

3. President Obama’s budget requests funds to ‘‘support activities to strengthen 

States’ content and achievement standards and assessments, such as activities to 

develop college- and career-ready standards and assessments’’. As you may be 

aware, I strongly support voluntary, national math and science education content 

standards. In June, I plan to reintroduce the Standards to Provide Educational 

Achievement for Kids (SPEAK) Act, which provides financial incentives to states to 

adopt world-class, national math and science standards. Please comment on the 

President’s proposal related to standards. 

4. Please elaborate on how the Race to the Top Funds will be distributed, and 

whether they will address specific subjects. 

5. Under the Higher Education Opportunity Act, you are required to convene a 

summit of higher education experts that work in the area of sustainable operations 

to develop and refine sustainability practices and innovation. I know that many in 

the sustainability community are anxious for this summit to take place, and the law 

requires it to take place by the end of fiscal year 2010. I would like to know what 

steps your Department has taken to date to prepare for this summit. (Text attached). 

SEC. 1120. SUMMIT ON SUSTAINABILITY. 

Not later than September 30, 2010, the Secretary of Education, in consultation 

with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall convene a 

summit of higher education experts working in the area of sustainable operations 

and programs, representatives from agencies of the Federal Government, and business and industry leaders to focus on efforts of national distinction that—— 

(1) encourage faculty, staff, and students at institutions of higher education to establish administrative and academic sustainability programs on campus; 

(2) enhance research by faculty and students at institutions of higher education 

in sustainability practices and innovations that assist and improve sustainability; 

(3) encourage institutions of higher education to work with community partners 

from the business, government, and nonprofit sectors to design and implement sustainability programs for application in the community and workplace; 

(4) identify opportunities for partnerships involving institutions of higher education and the Federal Government to expand sustainable operations and academic 

programs focused on environmental and economic sustainability; and 

(5) charge the summit participants or steering committee to submit a set of recommendations for addressing sustainability through institutions of higher education. 

6. Under the Higher Education Opportunity Act, you are required to enter into 

an agreement with the National Research Council to conduct an evaluation of distance education programs. The interim report is due next month. Please update me 

on this report’s progress. (Text attached). 

SEC. 1107. INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF DISTANCE EDUCATION PROGRAMS. 

(a) INDEPENDENT EVALUATION.—The Secretary of Education shall enter into 

an agreement with the National Research Council of the National Academy of 

Sciences to conduct a statistically valid evaluation of the quality of distance education programs, as compared to campus-based education programs, at institutions 

of higher education. Such evaluation shall include—— 

(1) identification of the elements by which the quality of distance education can 

be assessed, which may include elements such as subject matter, interactivity, and 

student outcomes; 

(2) identification of distance education program success, with respect to student 

achievement, in relation to the mission of the institution of higher education; 

(3) identification of the benefits and limitations of distance education programs 

and campus-based programs for different students (including classification of types 

of students by age category) by assessing access, job placement rates, graduation 

rates, and other factors related to persistence, completion, and cost; and 

(4) identification and analysis of factors that may make direct comparisons of distance education programs and campus based education programs difficult. 

(b) SCOPE.—The National Research Council shall select for participation in the 

evaluation under subsection (a) a diverse group of institutions of higher education 

with respect to size, mission, and geographic distribution. 

(c) INTERIM AND FINAL REPORTS.—The contract under subsection (a) shall 

require that the National Research Council submit to the authorizing committees—— 
59 

(1) an interim report regarding the evaluation under subsection (a) not later than 

June 30, 2009; and 

(2) a final report regarding such evaluation not later than June 30, 2010. 

REPRESENTATIVE JUDY BIGGERT (R–IL)

1. As you know, the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 included some 

important provisions to simplify the FAFSA form and ensure that homeless youth 

can access educational assistance. However, I have some concerns with the way this 

bill has been implemented. The statute requires that youth be considered independent if they are homeless or are self-supporting and at risk of homelessness. 

This status must be verified by one of four specified authorities. However, questions 

58-60 on the 2009-2010 FAFSA address homeless youth, and none of these questions 

include the possibility that a financial aid administrator may be a certifying authority, as specified in statute. In addition, questions 58 and 59 do not address the possibility that students who are self-supporting and at risk of homelessness can qualify as independent. I was wondering what your office was doing to rectify these 

issues to ensure that all college applicants have equal access to federal financial 

aid? 

2. According to the notes for questions 58-60 on the FAFSA, a ‘‘youth’’ is defined 

as one who is ‘‘21 years of age or younger or still enrolled in high school as of the 

day they sign this application.’’ However, the overall age to qualify as an independent is at least 23. Those individuals who are too old to qualify as a ‘‘youth’’ 

but are not yet independent by age do not qualify for aid if they are homeless or 

at risk of homelessness. Would you consider amending the definition of ‘‘youth’’ on 

next year’s FAFSA so that all homeless students born after January 1, 1987 can 

qualify for financial aid? 

REPRESENTATIVE TODD PLATTS (R–PA)

1. I am a co-chair of the Congressional Arts Caucus and through the Caucus we 

promote the advancement of music and arts education. As you know, students with 

an education rich in the arts have been proven to achieve better grade point averages in core academic subjects, score better on standardized tests, and have lower 

drop-out rates than students without arts education. Even though art is a core curriculum subject, many schools across the nation have eliminated their programs. As 

you develop proposals to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 

how do you plan to ensure that schools continue to offer music and art classes? 

2. A recent GAO Report (Access to Arts Education: Inclusion of Additional Questions in Education’s Planned Research Would Help Explain Why Instruction Time 

Has Decreased for Some Students, Feb. 27, 2009) found that teachers at schools 

identified as needing improvement and those with higher percentages of minority 

students were more likely to report a reduction in instructional time spent on arts 

education. Because of this finding, GAO recommended to the U.S. Department of 

Education that when carrying out its planned study on the impact of No Child Left 

Behind, questions be included regarding changes in arts instructional time and the 

causes of these changes. Do you plan to follow through on this recommendation? 

3. When will the other Assistant Secretaries be coming on board? 

4. What will the Administration’s top three priorities be for ESEA reauthorization? 

REPRESENTATIVE JOE WILSON (R–SC)

1. Will student debt increase for borrowers of Perkins Loans due to the accrual 

of interest from the origination of the loan as opposed to current policy when the 

student graduates? 

2. Congress has specifically mandated through law that certain ‘‘high-need’’ professions are eligible for loan cancellation under the currently structured Perkins 

Loan program. Eligible individuals can apply for up to $5000 of their Perkins Loan 

to be canceled in exchange for 5 years of public service. The Obama Administration 

is proposing to switch that to total loan forgiveness for 10 years of service AND 10 

years of repayment. Do you have data that shows if it costs students more, the federal government more, or both to make that change? 

REPRESENTATIVE TOM PRICE (R–GA)

1. Some states and local education agencies have passed legislation or signed contracts that prevent teacher compensation systems from taking student performance 

into account. Under the Teacher Incentive Fund, does the Administration believe 

student achievement should be taken into account when designing performance- 
60 

based compensation systems? Will these states and LEAs that do not include student performance as a factor be ineligible for Teacher Incentive Fund grants? 

2. Recently, Randi Weingarten, President of the American Federation of Teachers 

(AFT), said that Federally-financed performance-based compensation grants be collectively bargained as part of the contracts. Will the Administration mandate such 

a requirement under the Teacher Incentive Fund? What about in non-bargaining 

states—will it apply? 

REPRESENTATIVE BRETT GUTHRIE (R–KY)

1. I have heard a lot from the teachers in Kentucky about a program called Best 

in Class that was implemented by our non-profit State agency, the Kentucky Higher 

Education Assistance Authority (KHEAA). Through this program, any student who 

went into teaching was promised 100 percent forgiveness of their student loans over 

five years. This program is clearly more generous than the federal loan forgiveness 

programs. The agency had to stop offering this program due to the recent cuts to 

lender subsidies, but is eager to find an alternative method of financing loans that 

will provide them with the ability to restart this program. What options are available to KHEAA to assist them in fulfilling their promised obligations to these new 

teachers? 

2. I have been pleased to hear that the Secretary asserts that there will be an 

effort to continue working with state-based non-profit organizations. These organizations, such as the Kentucky Higher Education Assistance Authority (KHEAA), 

which serves my district, make valuable contributions to college access and financial 

literacy efforts across the country. I am concerned that KHEAA and other similar 

non-profit organizations will not be able to participate in servicing of loans originated under the Administration’s direct loan proposal due to their smaller size and 

capacity. Should the plan be passed into law, does the Administration’s proposal include an explicit role for smaller non-profits in servicing direct loan originated 

loans? 

REPRESENTATIVE BILL CASSIDY (R–LA)

1. Mr. Secretary, I know I was not in Congress when the original DC Opportunity 

Scholarship Program passed and the study was implemented, but in reviewing the 

text of the legislation and the most recent study, I am struck by the design. It appears that the Institute for Education Sciences (IES) studied the impact on achievement for those who were offered a scholarship rather than those who actually used 

the scholarship. Yet, the legislation clearly asks for comparisons between those students who are participating in the program and those that sought to participate and 

are not. This should have led to an evaluation that compared students using scholarships to those that are not, instead of mixed comparison groups with weakened 

results. However, given the dilution of the sample, we still have seen that students 

attending private schools have shown greater academic achievement. Wouldn’t it be 

prudent to continue the program and conduct a study that actually compares students who use scholarships to those in the DC public schools to determine achievement effects? 

2. In reviewing the past few years of the study, you can see steady growth in 

reading scores for students who have participated in the program to the point where 

we have the equivalent of more than three months of additional instruction for students using a scholarship over those who did not. You have seen that each year students also did better in math, but not at the statistically significant level. Given 

that each year we have seen gains in achievement for students using a scholarship 

over students in DC Public Schools, why wouldn’t you want to capitalize on those 

gains and scale up the program? It seems logical to continue working to improve 

the traditional public schools while opening up a lifeline of success to students so 

we do not have a lost generation of kids waiting for change to come to every school. 

3. Mr. Secretary, I know you have been asked several times about your position 

on the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. I believe your answer was that you 

wanted to work on reforms that help all kids. That is a noble goal that I and my 

colleagues agree with. However, I don’t believe this is an ‘‘either/or’’ situation. The 

parent groups in DC have a motto, ‘‘put kids first.’’ I see this as one more tough 

issue where ideology must be put aside so we can do what is right for kids. To that 

end, can you explain why you believe the right thing to do is to phase out a scholarship program that has shown success in achievement for those who use the scholarship and, if continued, would likely continue to show greater success? Why you believe the right thing to do is deny students the choice and chance to get a better 

education while the overall improvement process is underway? Why you believe that 

the right thing to do is get rid of a program that has been deemed successful by 
61 

the lead, independent researcher rather than scale up the program so more students 

can benefit? 

4. Last week, the Senate held a hearing on the DC Opportunity Scholarship program. One of the witnesses, Ms. Latasha Bennet, the mother of a child currently 

receiving a scholarship and one who was promised a scholarship that was recently 

revoked, posed a question to you that I would like to ask for her today. She said, 

‘‘I would like to ask Mr. Secretary Arne Duncan how is it that my child should not 

be given the same opportunity as his children to get the best education possible.’’ 

How do you respond to Ms. Bennet, whose young daughter will not have the same 

opportunity as her older brother because of the decision to block new enrollees? 

REPRESENTATIVE GLEN THOMPSON (R–PA)

1. The Administration has focused a lot of attention on immediate job training related to the current economic downturn. What is the Administration’s plan for 

longer term career education and training to address the shortage in skilled labor 

the country will be facing as the baby boomer generation gets closer to retirement? 

We have known this has been coming for a while; what is going to be done? 

2. I have read that you have recently been on the road and welcomed comment 

from rural schools and communities; I can say that representing a rural district just 

larger than the state of New Jersey, I appreciate your initiative. While you have 

only been in your position for a short period of time, can you provide me details 

on what initiatives your department is putting forth for rural education? 

Please send an electronic version of your written response to the questions to the 

Committee by close of business on Wednesday June 3, 2009—the date on which the 

hearing record will close. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact 

the Committee. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE MILLER, Chairman. 

December 10, 2009. 

Hon. GEORGE MILLER, Chairman, 

Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, 2181 Rayburn 

House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing in response to your Committee’s follow up 

questions from the May 20, 2009 hearing on ‘‘The Obama Administration’s Education Agenda.’’ Please see the enclosed document for the Department’s responses 

to those questions. 

If you have any issues or questions about our responses, please contact me at 202- 

401-0020. 

Sincerely, 

GABRIELLA GOMEZ, Assistant Secretary, 

Office of Legislation and Congressional Affairs, U.S. Department of Education. 

Rep. Biggert 

1. As you know, the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 included some 

important provisions to simplify the FAFSA form and ensure that homeless youth 

can access educational assistance. However, I have some concerns with the way this 

bill has been implemented. The statute requires that youth be considered independent if they are homeless or are self-supporting and at risk of homelessness. 

This status must be verified by one of four specified authorities. However, questions 

58-60 on the 2009-2010 FAFSA address homeless youth, and none of these questions 

include the possibility that a financial aid administrator may be a certifying authority, as specified in statute. In addition, questions 58 and 59 do not address the possibility that students who are self-supporting and at risk of homelessness can qualify as independent. I was wondering what your office was doing to rectify these 

issues to ensure that all college applicants have equal access to federal financial 

aid? 

A: In our proposed 2010-2011 electronic FAFSA (FAFSA on the Web) we are seeking public comment and approval of a screening question for any applicant who had 

not yet been determined to be independent because of the applicant’s response to 

one of the other independent criteria. The screening question will ask the applicant 

if he or she is homeless or at risk of being homeless. Since this is the last dependency question, a response of NO will result in the applicant being considered dependent and parental information will be required. If the response is YES, the next 
62 

direction will depend on whether the applicant is 21 years of age or younger or is 

older than 21. 

For applicants 21 years of age or younger, if the applicant responds YES to the 

homelessness screening question, the three agency homelessness determination 

questions (Questions 58-60) will be presented. An applicant who responds YES to 

any of those three questions will be determined to be independent and no parental 

information will be requested. An applicant who responds NO to all three of the detail questions will be preliminarily considered to be a dependent student. However, 

the applicant will be instructed to contact the financial aid administrator (FAA) to 

see if a determination of homelessness can be made consistent with the law. Also, 

the electronic information sent to the school will be flagged so that the school can 

reach out to the applicant to resolve their status. 

Because the three agency determination questions do not apply to applicants 22 

or 23 years old because of their age, the three detail questions will not be presented 

to an older applicant who responds YES to the screening question. Such an applicant will be considered to be dependent. However, the applicant will be instructed 

to contact the financial aid administrator (FAA) to see if a determination of homelessness can be made consistent with the law. Also, the electronic information sent 

to the school will be flagged so that the school can reach out to the applicant to 

resolve their status. 

2. According to the notes for questions 58-60 on the FAFSA, a ‘‘youth’’ is defined 

as one who is ‘‘21 years of age or younger or still enrolled in high school as of the 

day they sign this application.’’ However, the overall age to qualify as an independent is at least 23. Those individuals who are too old to qualify as a ‘‘youth’’ 

but are not yet independent by age do not qualify for aid if they are homeless or 

at risk of homelessness. Would you consider amending the definition of ‘‘youth’’ on 

next year’s FAFSA so that all homeless students born after January 1, 1987 can 

qualify for financial aid? 

A: The age at which an applicant is automatically considered to be independent 

is 24. The definition of ‘‘youth’’ is based on the laws referenced in the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA). With regard to the question of how a homeless (or 

at risk of being homeless) person who is 22 or 23 can be considered independent 

based upon that homelessness condition, we believe that the process described in 

response to the previous question will ensure that such applicants are considered 

for a determination of homelessness by the financial aid administrator. 

Rep. Cassidy 

1. Mr. Secretary, I know I was not in Congress when the original DC Opportunity 

Scholarship Program passed and the study was implemented, but in reviewing the 

text of the legislation and the most recent study I am struck by the design. It appears that the Institute for Education Sciences studied the impact on achievement 

for those who were offered a scholarship rather than those who actually used the 

scholarship. Yet, the legislation clearly asks for comparisons between those students 

who are participating in the program and those that sought to participate and are 

not. This should have led to an evaluation that compared students using scholarships with those that are not instead of mixed comparison groups with weakened 

results. However, given the dilution of the sample we still have seen that students 

attending private schools have shown greater academic achievement. Wouldn’t it be 

prudent to continue the program and conduct a study that actually compares students who use scholarships to those in the DC public schools to determine achievement effects? 

A: The design of the OSP evaluation did take into account the certainty that not 

every student offered a scholarship actually uses it. IES has produced estimates of 

the impact of using a scholarship (i.e. participating in the program). These estimates 

appear side-by-side with the estimates of the impact of the offer of a scholarship 

in Chapter 3 of the recent report. For example, p. 41 (table 3-4) shows that the impact of the offer of a scholarship on reading achievement is equivalent to 3.11 

months of schooling, while the impact of using a scholarship is equivalent to 3.68 

months of schooling. 

The OSP study design is identical to all other evaluations of voucher programs 

that have used random assignment. The lotteries that produce the random assignment are conducted when students apply to the program and are either offered 

(treatment group) or not offered (control group) a scholarship. Therefore, the first 

stage of analysis is to compare the outcomes of the two groups—which provides the 

estimate of the scholarship offer. We require those initial estimates in order to calculate the impact of using a scholarship. For the purposes of transparency, both estimates are provided in the reports. 
63 

2. In reviewing the past few years of the study you can see steady growth in reading scores for students who have participated in the program to the point where we 

have the equivalent of more than three months of additional instruction for students 

using a scholarship over those who did not. You have seen that each year students 

also did better in math, but not at the statistically significant level. Given that each 

year we have seen gains in achievement for students using a scholarship over students in DC Public Schools why wouldn’t you want to capitalize on those gains and 

scale up the program? It seems logical to continue working to improve the traditional public schools while opening up a lifeline of success to students so we do not 

have a lost generation of kids waiting for change to come to every school. 

A: The recent evaluation report demonstrated an impact in reading for only 5 of 

the 10 subgroups of students and did not include those students who entered the 

program at relative academic disadvantage, such as the students from DC schools 

designated as in need of improvement who were the main target group for the program. Also, please note that the fact that the math results are not statistically significant means that we can’t distinguish the impact from zero; that is, we can’t be 

confident that the impacts are positive. Finally, the size of the reading impact for 

the OSP after three years is comparable to, or perhaps lower than, the impacts on 

reading achievement found in two studies of inner city charter schools (in Boston 

and New York City). 

While the Administration supports letting current students continue their scholarships, we are focusing our efforts on supporting the District’s efforts to improve 

their public schools in order to provide opportunities for all students, rather than 

expanding the OSP to serve new students. 

3. Mr. Secretary, I know you have been asked several times about your position 

on the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. I believe your answer was that you 

wanted to work on reforms that help all kids. That is a noble goal that I and my 

colleagues agree with. However I don’t believe this is an ‘‘either/or’’ situation. The 

parent groups in DC have a motto, ‘‘put kids first.’’ I see this as one more tough 

issue where ideology must be put aside so we can do what is right for kids. To that 

end, can you explain why you believe the right thing to do is to phase out a scholarship program that has shown success in achievement for those who use the scholarship and, if continued, would likely continue to show greater success? Why you believe the right thing to do is deny students the choice and chance to get a better 

education while the overall improvement process is underway? Why you believe that 

the right thing to do is get rid of a program that has been deemed successful by 

the lead, independent researcher rather than scale up the program so more students 

can benefit? 

A: For the reasons described in response to the previous question, while the Administration supports letting current students continue their scholarships, we are 

focusing our efforts on supporting the District’s efforts to improve their public 

schools in order to provide opportunities for all students, rather than expanding the 

OSP to serve new students. 

4. Last week, the Senate held a hearing on the DC Opportunity Scholarship program. One of the witnesses, Ms. Latasha Bennet, the mother of a child currently 

receiving a scholarship and one who was promised a scholarship that was recently 

revoked, posed a question to you that I would like to ask for her today. She said, 

‘‘I would like to ask Mr. Secretary Arne Duncan how is it that my child should not 

be given the same opportunity as his children to get the best education possible.’’ 

How do you respond to Ms. Bennet, whose young daughter will not have the same 

opportunity as her older brother because of the decision to block new enrollees? 

A: The Administration strongly supports the District’s efforts to improve their 

public schools to provide opportunities for all students. In addition to the funds that 

the District’s schools would receive under President Obama’s overall Fiscal Year 

2010 Education budget proposal and are receiving under the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act, President Obama’s FY10 budget proposal requests a total of $74 

million to support kindergarten through high school education in the District, including $42 million for DC Public Schools and $20 million for DC charter schools, 

as well as $12 million to allow currently enrolled students to continue in the DC 

Opportunity Scholarship Program. 

Rep. Ehlers 

1. Under the Higher Education Opportunity Act, you are required to convene a 

summit of higher education experts that work in the area of sustainable operations 

to develop and refine sustainability practices and innovation. I know that many in 

the sustainability community are anxious for this summit to take place, and the law 

requires it to take place by the end of fiscal year 2010. I would like to know what 

steps your Department has taken to date to prepare for this summit. 
64 

A: As the Department and other agencies bring on staff, we have had initial discussions regarding this summit. We would be happy to give you a progress report 

as we get closer to the date for the summit. 

2. Under the Higher Education Opportunity Act, you are required to enter into 

an agreement with the National Research Council to conduct an evaluation of distance education programs. The interim report is due next month. Please update me 

on this report’s progress. 

A: The Department has not entered into an agreement with the National Research Council for this evaluation because no funding was provided by Congress for 

this purpose. 

3. According to OSTP (Office of Science and Technology Policy), STEM education funding at the U.S. Department of Education is $87 million (or 10 percent) less than 

fiscal year 2009 in the President’s budget request. I am confused about the conflicting messages from the Obama Administration on support for STEM education 

and the America COMPETES Act, particularly at the K-12 levels. Why the discrepancy between the message and the fiscal year 2010 budget request? 

A: There is no discrepancy between the budget request and the President’s message. The lower funding request reflects the expiration of the authority for one program, the Hispanic-serving Institutions STEM and Articulation Program, which was 

authorized and received mandatory funding for fiscal years 2008 and 2009. If one 

excludes that one-time funding, the current STEM budget for programs in the Department of Education is actually $13 million higher than in FY 2009. 

4. President Obama has recognized the need to improve our students’ readiness 

for the jobs of the future. However, the U.S. Department of Education’s fiscal year 

2010 budget requests level funding for the Math & Science Partnerships program. 

For years, Representatives Holt and Ehlers have fought to increase funding for this 

valuable teacher professional development program at the Department of Education. 

I find it very disheartening that the President’s budget does not request adequate 

resources for this program. Please comment on how, under the President’s proposal, 

current teachers will be equipped with the math and science skills needed to help 

our nation’s future workers succeed. 

A: In addition to the request for Math and Science Partnerships (MSP), the Ad- ministration has requested over $3 billion for ESEA Title II-A teacher professional 

development through Title II, Part A programs, including Improving Teacher Quality State Grants, Troops-to-Teachers, and Transition to Teaching. These programs 

serve teachers across the academic content areas, including mathematics and 

science. 

5. President Obama’s budget requests funds to ‘‘support activities to strengthen 

States’ content and achievement standards and assessments, such as activities to 

develop college- and career-ready standards and assessments’’. As you may be 

aware, I strongly support voluntary, national math and science education content 

standards. In June, I plan to reintroduce the Standards to Provide Educational 

Achievement for Kids (SPEAK) Act, which provides financial incentives to states to 

adopt world-class, national math and science standards. Please comment on the 

President’s proposal related to standards. 

A: Unfortunately, many state standards for graduation from high school fail to 

prepare children for college or careers. The Administration is pleased that the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers have 

committed to leading an effort to create common standards in English language arts 

and mathematics for grades K-12. These standards will be research- and evidencebased, internationally benchmarked, aligned with college and work expectations, 

and include rigorous content and skills. 

Our request for $410.7 million for State Assessments and Enhanced Assessment 

Instruments would support the development and improvement of standards and assessments, and administration of improved State assessments aligned with those 

standards. Although States have largely met the requirements for implementing the 

assessments currently required under Title I of the ESEA, the Administration believes that those requirements should be considered basic requirements, not requirements for an ideal assessment system. The Administration is, therefore, requesting 

funds that States can use to begin developing and implementing rigorous collegeand career-ready standards and high-quality assessments that are valid and reliable 

for all students. In addition, these funds will complement and support the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) requirement that States improve their existing academic standards and that they implement college- and career-ready standards and 

rigorous assessments to improve both teaching and learning. Also, we have set aside 

$350 million of Race to the Top funds for the potential purpose of supporting States 

in the development of a next generation of assessments. As an important next step 

in contemplating and designing a competition for these funds, and as a means of 
65 

providing technical assistance to States, the Department held public meetings in 

Boston, Atlanta and Denver. Information about the schedule and topics is available 

at http://www.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment/index.html. 

6. Please elaborate on how the Race to the Top Funds will be distributed, and 

whether they will address specific subjects. 

A: Race to the Top is a competitive grant program designed to encourage and reward States that are creating the conditions for education innovation and reform; 

achieving significant improvement in student outcomes, including making substantial gains in student achievement, closing achievement gaps, improving high school 

graduation rates, and ensuring student preparation for success in college and careers; and implementing ambitious plans in four core education reform areas: • Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college 

and the workplace and to compete in the global economy; • Building data systems that measure student growth and success, and inform 

teachers and principals about how they can improve instruction; • Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most; and • Turning around our lowest-achieving schools. 

Race to the Top will reward States that have demonstrated success in raising student achievement and have the best plans to accelerate their reforms in the future. 

These States will offer models for others to follow and will spread the best reform 

ideas across their States, and across the country. States that include in their application a high-quality plan to emphasize science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education will receive a competitive preference. 

The Department plans to make Race to the Top grants in two phases. States that 

are ready to apply now may do so in Phase 1; States that need more time may apply 

in Phase 2. States that apply in Phase 1 but are not awarded grants may reapply 

for funding in Phase 2, together with States that are applying for the first time in 

Phase 2. Phase 1 grantees may not apply for additional funding in Phase 2. Phase 

1 applications will be due January 19, 2010 and awards announced in April 2010. 

Phase 2 applications will be due June 1, 2010 and awards announced in September 

2010. 

The Final Notice/Invitation for Applications for Race to the Top can be found at 

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-27427.pdf and an executive summary 

can be found at http://www.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf. 

Rep. Guthrie 

1. I have been pleased to hear that the Secretary asserts that there will be an 

effort to continue working with state-based non-profit organizations. These organizations, such as the Kentucky Higher Education Assistance Authority (KHEAA), 

which serves my district, make valuable contributions to college access and financial 

literacy efforts across the country. I am concerned that KHEAA and other similar 

non-profit organizations will not be able to participate in servicing of loans originated under the Administration’s direct loan proposal due to their smaller size and 

capacity. Should the plan be passed into law, does the Administration’s proposal include an explicit role for smaller non-profits in servicing direct loan originated 

loans? 

A: States and non-profits should not have to depend on loan servicing revenue in 

order to engage in important college access and financial literacy education in high 

schools. The problems in the credit markets have seriously undermined the work 

of a number of nonprofit organizations that had relied on loan income to fund outreach efforts. That is why we are proposing a separate pot of mandatory funds for 

States that can be used to continue these important activities. 

2. I have heard a lot from the teachers in Kentucky about a program called Best 

in Class that was implemented by our non-profit State agency, the Kentucky Higher 

Education Assistance Authority (KHEAA). Through this program, any student who 

went into teaching was promised 100 percent forgiveness of their student loans over 

five years. This program is clearly more generous than the federal loan forgiveness 

programs. The agency had to stop offering this program due to the recent cuts to 

lender subsidies, but is eager to find an alternative method of financing loans that 

will provide them with the ability to restart this program. What options are available to KHEAA to assist them in fulfilling their promised obligations to these new 

teachers? 

A: The Department has received many letters regarding this situation. While we 

understand your concerns, the Department does not have any legal power to compel 

KHEAA or the State of Kentucky to offer that program. There are several Federal 

programs that help teachers with their obligation to repay their student loans. 

Teachers who participated in Best in Class may be able to qualify for a loan can-
66 

cellation of up to $17,500 for teachers serving for 5 consecutive years in low-income 

schools and subject-matter shortage areas, or these teachers can consolidate the 

loans into the Direct Loan Program in order to take advantage of the Public Service 

Loan Forgiveness Program. 

Rep. McKeon 

1. In the President’s 2010 budget proposal, there is a great deal of emphasis 

placed on early childhood programs, including new programs that would be implemented by the Department of Education. As you know, the Federal government already has a number of different early childhood programs (69 identified by a 2001 

GAO report), the largest of which are based at the Department of Health and 

Human Services. I am concerned that, by creating additional and separate Federal 

early childhood programs, we would simply be adding to an already fragmented system of early childhood assistance at the Federal level. Would the new programs at 

the Department of Education take the place of any of the existing Federal programs? 

A: The new Early Learning Challenge Fund program would strengthen and complement, not duplicate, existing and proposed Federal investments in early learning 

programs, including Head Start. The grants would support State efforts to raise 

their early childhood education standards, build systems that promote quality and 

ensure the effectiveness of their early learning programs, and monitor programs’ 

performance against the State standards. 

2. I’m aware that the Department has decided to revise the Title I regulation 

issued in 2002 to allow those school districts in need of improvement to serve as 

eligible providers of Supplemental Educational Services (SES). The last Administration implemented a pilot program allowing a number of districts to offer SES in conjunction with implementing parental notification and awareness provisions. Are 

these parental options going to be part of your changes to the districts in need of 

improvement regulation? And, if not, what protections are you going to put in place 

to ensure that students are not forced into district programs? And what recommendations would you make so that all providers have equal access to collecting 

and disseminating information to ensure maximum parental choice? 

A: The Department’s proposal to allow States to approve as an SES provider a 

district identified for improvement, or corrective action, or a school identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring is intended to level the playing field 

for such LEAs and schools and is not intended to give them unfair advantage in 

enrolling students in SES. If an identified district or school becomes a State-approved provider, it must follow the same statutory and regulatory requirements for 

implementing SES that apply to other providers. Moreover, the October 2008 Title 

I regulations include new provisions that will help to ensure that all providers have 

equal access to eligible students. For example, in order to spend unexpended funds 

from its 20 percent obligation on other allowable activities, an LEA must partner 

with outside groups to promote participation in SES and public school choice, take 

certain steps to ensure that all eligible students and their parents have a genuine 

opportunity to sign up for SES and public school choice, and ensure that all providers are given access to school facilities using a fair, open, and objective process. 

In addition, the Department has produced a guidebook to assist LEAs with meeting 

their obligations to notify parents about SES and public school choice and to implement the requirements of the two provisions. The guidebook, ‘‘Giving Parents Options: Strategies for Informing Parents and Implementing Public School Choice and 

Supplemental Educational Services under No Child Left Behind,’’ is available at 

http://www.ed.gov/admins/comm/choice/options/index.html. Finally, it is parents 

who will continue to make the final decision about choosing an SES provider from 

the State list of approved providers that serve their area. 

3. One of the keys to successful implementation of the supplemental educational 

services provision is communicating to parents the availability of these services in 

ways that are easily understandable. Can you detail how some districts, including 

your experience in Chicago, have made strides in getting the word out to parents 

about the availability of both the district-sponsored service and the service of other 

providers? 

A: Chicago, as well as other districts, has taken seriously its responsibility to provide clear and complete information to parents about their SES options. For example, for the 2008-09 school year, Chicago initially informed parents about SES in 

April 2008 through a letter in both English and Spanish. That was followed by a 

detailed SES handbook (also in English and Spanish) distributed to parents at the 

start of the school year. Chicago has developed this handbook each year for several 

years, and it contains information on each provider approved to serve the district. 

Additionally, the district undertook a door-to-door campaign to reach parents, aired 
67 

radio and TV announcements, worked with community partners to get the word out, 

and posted information online. This resulted in almost 200,000 students being notified in Chicago and almost 50,000 enrolling in services (in both the district’s program and other providers’ programs). 

We believe that other districts around the country will begin or continue these 

types of outreach activities in the 2009-2010 school year thanks to several new allowances and requirements in the Title I regulations. For example, districts may 

now spend the equivalent of 1 percent of their Title I allocations (and count that 

money against their public school choice and SES obligation) for parent outreach for 

SES and public school choice. Additionally, the regulations require districts that 

have not spent their full 20 percent obligation and wish to spend the unexpended 

funds on other activities to partner with outside groups to help inform parents. The 

regulations also require all districts to send SES notices to parents that are clear, 

concise, and clearly distinguishable from other school improvement information and 

that explain the benefits of SES, among other things. 

However, the Department will need to remain vigilant to ensure that districts, in 

light of budget cuts, continue to fully inform parents of their SES options, as well 

as implement all other aspects of SES consistent with all regulatory and statutory 

requirements. Furthermore, pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, districts may be required to communicate information to parents with limited English 

proficiency in their native language. The Department’s Office for Civil Rights, which 

has enforcement responsibility for this statute, will vigorously enforce this law. 

4. Would the new early childhood education programs proposed in the President’s 

budget be required to work within the existing Head Start standards, updated in 

the reauthorization bill that passed last Congress? Will these new programs be targeted towards low-income kids or will all students qualify, including students from 

wealthy families? 

A: None of the Administration’s proposed early learning programs would conflict 

with the existing Head Start Program Performance Standards. These initiatives 

would also encourage or require programs to serve disadvantaged children. For example, the Early Learning Challenge Fund would require applicants to describe the 

efforts they would make to move a higher proportion of low-income children to higher-quality early learning settings. None of the Administration’s proposed programs 

(Early Childhood Grants, Early Learning Challenge Fund, Promise Neighborhoods, 

and Early Reading First) prohibit or would prohibit grantees from serving children 

who are not from low-income families. 

5. I am aware that the Department has notified States and school districts that 

it will entertain requests for waivers to certain SES provisions included in Title I 

of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. What criteria are you basing those waivers on? And 

would you consider granting a waiver for SES in districts where there are more kids 

eligible for SES than could be funded under the 20 percent set-aside? 

A: The non-regulatory guidance on Title I, Part A Waivers released in July describes in Section B, ‘‘Waivers of Title I, Part A Statutory and Regulatory Requirements Related to SES and Public School Choice,’’ the requirements related to such 

waivers. Section C, ‘‘Waivers Related to Title I, Part A ARRA Funds,’’ includes requests for waivers to allow exclusion of Title I, Part A ARRA funds in ‘‘set aside’’ 

calculations. The guidance is available at: http://www.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/ 

title-i-waiver.doc. 

6. I know that you have talked a lot about innovation and granting States additional flexibility in how they implement several provisions under ESEA. To this end, 

has the Department worked with States and local educational agencies to encourage 

them to submit performance agreements under the State and Local Flexibility Demonstration Programs? Also, would you support proposals to increase the percentage 

of funds that States and local school districts could transfer under the law’s transferability option? 

A: The Department would need to examine the impact of the current statute and 

complete an analysis of the transferability activities over the past years in order to 

make an informed decision on the issue of the percentage of funds that SEAs and 

LEAs should be able to transfer to other programs. The Department will consider 

the role of the current flexibility programs in spurring innovation within the context 

of the upcoming ESEA reauthorization. The Secretary is now in the middle of a nationwide listening and learning tour to hear from parents, students, teachers, principals and other educators about how ESEA is working and how best to promote 

reform of our nation’s schools. 

7. The Administration’s proposal would seem to funnel an overwhelming majority 

of its early childhood education funding through local educational agencies, some of 

which are deemed at failure of meeting State standards in reading and math under 
68 

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Will schools that currently fail to 

meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) be considered as eligible entities to provide 

early childhood education? 

A: Only one of the new early childhood programs proposed by the Administration 

in the Fiscal Year 2010 budget request, Title I Early Childhood Grants, would provide formula funds to local educational agencies (LEAs). This initiative would leverage a portion of the Title I funds made available under the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Recovery Act) by supporting the planning and implementation of local early childhood education programs. The Department would make 

formula grants to State educational agencies (SEAs) based on the proportional share 

of Title I, Part A funds received by their LEAs in fiscal year 2009, including Recovery Act funds. States would then provide matching grants to LEAs, with the match 

supplied by LEAs through the allocation of Recovery Act Title I funds to eligible 

early childhood programs. The unprecedented increase in Title I funding provided 

by the Recovery Act creates a unique opportunity for LEAs to make the investments 

needed to establish or expand high-quality pre-K programs that are fully coordinated with their existing Title I programs. SEAs would be permitted to establish 

their own additional requirements for LEAs seeking matching grants, including priorities for the use of funds, performance standards, and limitations on the participation of LEAs that do not have the capacity to use the funds effectively to implement 

high-quality early childhood programs. The Department would not require States to 

link these funds to schools’ AYP status. 

8. As you know, one of the most common challenges that local school districts 

have had when trying to help schools that are in need of improvement is that local 

collective bargaining agreements restrict the assignment of more experienced teachers, the expeditious dismissal of teachers who cannot demonstrate effectiveness, and 

reconstitution of school staff. How should Federal law tackle this problem? Should 

we repeal or make exceptions to the collective bargaining language included in 

ESEA? 

A: The Administration recognizes the importance and necessity of developing and 

implementing reforms through collaboration and partnership with unions. Turning 

around underperforming schools, particularly schools with the greatest need for improvement, will be challenging yet essential work. The Administration is confident 

that collective bargaining agreements will not be a limitation in carrying out effective school turnarounds. 

9. Early childhood education has historically been a private endeavor. Would the 

Administration’s new early childhood proposals allow the private industry, including 

community-based providers, to maintain their role in State provided early childhood 

education? 

A: The Administration’s proposals would allow privately owned and operated early 

learning programs, including programs operated by community-based organizations, 

to continue their important role in providing young children with critical programs, 

services, and supports. 

10. Do you support alternate routes to teacher certification that maintain high 

standards for subject matter knowledge but remove many of the hoops and hurdles 

that I believe keep many promising individuals out of teaching? 

A: Yes. For example, the Administration’s FY 2010 budget proposal requests continued funding for the Transition to Teaching (TTT) grant program, at the FY 2009 

level of $43,707,000. Projects funded through TTT have been successful in recruiting 

and selecting qualified mid-career professionals, highly qualified paraprofessionals, 

and recent college graduates (within three years) to teach in high-need schools in 

high-need districts, providing rigorous preparation leading to certification through 

accelerated, alternate routes, and providing project participants the mentoring and 

support needed to increase the likelihood of them remaining in teaching. Because 

of the alternative routes to certification and incentives provided by the projects, 

many individuals who would not have been able to enter teaching have been able 

to do so and meet the needs of students in our highest need districts. 

11. In your opinion, do you think that teacher colleges of education are doing an 

adequate job preparing teachers for the realities of today’s classroom—diverse population, special needs students, and content standards set by ESEA? If not, what are 

your suggestions for improving pre-service training for our nation’s teachers? 

A: Colleges of education need to make dramatic changes to prepare today’s children to compete in the global economy. Teacher-preparation programs should ensure 

that new teachers will master the content of the subjects they will teach and they 

will have well-supported field-based experiences embedded throughout their preparation programs. Their ultimate goal should be to create a generation of teachers 

who are focused on improving student achievement and ready to deliver on that 

goal. Congress recently reauthorized the Higher Education Act, which includes the 
69 

authority for the Teacher Quality Partnership program in Title II. As revised, Title 

II now authorizes grants for pre-baccalaureate as well as residency programs, and 

we have recently awarded grants under the new authority. While the entire Higher 

Education Act was just reauthorized and will not expire until FY 2014, Title II will 

expire in FY 2011. 

12. Recent research, including research from former President Clinton chief-ofstaff John Podesta’s organization, has shown that student achievement goes up 

when principals have the freedom to reward good teachers. On the other hand, research has also shown that additional credentials, including National Board certification, bears little to no relationship to improved student performance. So, rather 

than giving each National Board-certified teacher $10,000 as some proposals would 

do, wouldn’t it be wiser to invest that money in incentive pay structures that have 

a track record of success? 

A: Our budget request for the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards 

(NBPTS) is based on a variety of evidence showing the positive impact of National 

Board Certified Teachers (NBCTs) on student achievement and other measures. According to ‘‘Assessing Accomplished Teaching: Advanced-Level Certification Programs,’’ a report released by the National Research Council (NRC) of the National 

Academies in June 2008, NBCTs have higher retention rates and students with 

higher achievement. This most rigorous and comprehensive study to date of National Board Certification (NBC) followed a request by Congress to develop a framework for evaluating programs that offer advanced-level certification to teachers. 

In addition, several major independent studies show that students of teachers who 

have earned NBC perform better on standardized tests and on other measures than 

students of non-NBCTs. In one large-scale analysis of more than 100,000 student 

records, Linda Cavalluzzo (2004) demonstrates that students of NBCTs—particularly African American and Hispanic students—make larger gains in mathematics 

than students taught by non-NBCTs. Another study finds that students of NBCTs 

make learning gains equivalent on average to an extra month in school (Vandevoort, 

Beardsley, & Berliner, 2004). Furthermore, an examination of student achievement 

by Dan Goldhaber and Emily Anthony (2004) reveals that students of NBCTs scored 

7 to 15 percentage points higher on year-end tests. These studies also show that minority students benefit even more from instruction by NBCTs. 

13. I’ve seen a quote from you many times, including recently in Time Magazine, 

when you stated that, ‘‘What NCLB did was, they were very loose on the goals— 

50 states could create their own goals and 50 different goalposts, and [what] that 

led to was a real dumbing down of those goals. What they’re very tight on is how 

you get there. I think what we need to do is fundamentally reverse that—I think 

we need to be really tight on goals and have these common college-ready international benchmark standards that we’re all aiming for, but then be much looser 

in how you let folks get there.’’ What do you mean by being ‘‘looser on how you let 

folks get there’’? Does that mean delaying State accountability or pushing off the 

timeline? How do your comments compare to the fact that local educational agencies 

have a significant amount of flexibility into what interventions they implement for 

their failing schools once they are identified as needing corrective action or restructuring? Also, if you believe that State standards in reading and math are too low 

and that States need to implement common standards that are high standards, how 

are you going to address the complaints that we have heard from States that it was 

too hard to get all kids on grade level to what you call ‘‘dumbed down goals’’? 

A: Unfortunately, under NCLB, many State standards fail to prepare children for 

college or careers. This Administration is pleased that the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers have committed to leading an 

effort to create common standards in English language arts and mathematics for 

grades K-12. These standards will be research- and evidence-based, internationally 

benchmarked, aligned with college and work expectations, and include rigorous content and skills. We strongly believe that all children, with proper support, can 

achieve to high standards. With regard to accountability under ESEA, the Secretary 

is in the middle of a nationwide listening and learning tour to hear from parents, 

students, teachers and other educators about how ESEA is working and how best 

to promote reform in our Nation’s schools. Their views and many others will inform 

our thinking about reauthorization, and we look forward to working with the Committee on that. 

14. I’ve heard that there has been some discussion at the Department that the 

2014 timeline will be ‘‘dealt with’’ in the Race to the Top application, with the implication that if States agree to raise their standards, the Department will give them 

additional time on accountability beyond the 2014 deadline. Can you elaborate on 

this point? And if so, under what authority would you do this? 
70 

A: The Race to the Top application process described in the Final Notice/Invitation 

for Applications does not address the 2014 timeline. The final notice can be found 

at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-27427.pdf. 

15. In your testimony, you mentioned that all staff, including janitors and lunch 

attendants, in a school should receive awards under the proposed performance pay 

system. Is there any scientific research available that demonstrates that including 

these other staff members in the performance pay system will help increase student 

achievement? 

A: The Teacher Incentive Fund provides grants to encourage school districts and 

States to develop and implement innovative performance-based compensation systems that reward teachers and principals for raising student achievement and for 

taking positions in high-need schools. States and LEAs, either alone or in partnership with non-profit organizations, may apply for competitive grants to develop and 

implement performance-based compensation systems for public school teachers and 

principals. These compensation systems must be based primarily on measures related to student achievement. 

The $420 million increase from the regular 2009 appropriation that the Administration has requested would support a significant expansion of State and school district efforts to develop and implement comprehensive strategies for strengthening 

the educator workforce and driving improvements in teacher effectiveness. Beginning with the competition that the Department will conduct this year with the $200 

million in additional funds provided for this program by the Recovery Act, the Department will place a priority on the support of comprehensive, aligned approaches 

that support improved teacher and principal effectiveness and help ensure an equitable distribution of effective educators, that actively involve teachers (including 

special education teachers) and principals in the design of human capital and compensation systems, and that use data from emerging State and local longitudinal 

data systems to track outcomes and associate those outcomes with educator performance. In addition, the Administration is requesting language that would permit 

support for performance-based compensation to all staff in a school, because research indicates that this approach can be effective in raising performance across 

a variety of organizations. This proposed language would replace current language 

limiting performance-based compensation to teachers and principals. In addition, the request includes $30 million to support the National Teacher Recruitment Campaign, a comprehensive effort by the Department, working with public and private non-profit partners, to reach out to potential candidates (including 

non-traditional candidates) for teaching positions, provide information on routes 

they can take to enter the profession, and support the development of training programs to help these candidates become qualified to teach. 

16. The Administration’s budget includes a new Striving Readers program that 

will provide competitive grants to local educational agencies targeted toward helping 

students in elementary schools learn to read. In the development of this plan and 

the planning application process, will school districts be required to ensure that 

their programs include instruction in phonemic awareness? Will they be required to 

ensure that the programs include instruction in phonics? 

A: Yes. Local educational agencies that receive funding under the proposed Striving Readers Early Literacy Grants program would be required to address the five 

components of effective reading instruction identified in 2000 by the National Reading Panel: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. In 

addition, the Department would emphasize oral language development and writing 

skills. 

17. Does the Administration have any plans to make changes to the 1% or the 

2% rules, which allow States to hold students with disabilities to alternative or 

modified achievement standards under ESEA? 

A: This is an area that we will likely consider in developing a proposal for reauthorization of the ESEA as we look at options for ensuring the valid and reliable 

assessment of students with disabilities. 

18. It is a known fact that IDEA is underfunded at the Federal level. By Congress 

not meeting its commitment to fully fund 40 percent of the national average per 

pupil expenditure, local districts have picked up the cost burden. When Congress 

passed IDEA in 2004, we hoped that one day we would meet our commitment to 

fully fund special education and knew we needed to give local school districts some 

flexibility to reclaim their local dollars they have been using to cover the shortfall. 

Therefore, we included language in the law that districts would be allowed to reclaim their local dollars in an amount equal to 50 percent of their Federal increase, 

provided they use those dollars for educational purposes. The funding included in 

the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act or ARRA is one of the first real opportunities for school districts to utilize this flexibility. However, it has come to my at-
71 

tention that the Office of Special Education Programs is taking a restrictive view 

and denying the ability of school districts to use this flexibility. When we passed 

IDEA in 2004, we included report language that said States had to ‘‘meet an exceptionally high standard to prevent local education agencies from exercising local control.’’ What basis is the Department using to deny the use of this flexibility to thousands of school districts? 

A: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Section 613(a)(2)(C) 

permits local educational agencies (LEAs) that meet certain conditions to reduce 

their required local, or State and local, expenditures on special education by up to 

50 percent of any increase in the LEA’s allocation under IDEA Section 611 (Grants 

to States program). 

The LEA must spend the ‘freed-up’ local or, State and local, funds on activities 

that are authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 

1965. Under IDEA, section 616(f), States are required to prohibit any LEAs that 

they determine are not meeting the requirements of Part B from taking an MOE 

reduction under the authority in section 613(a)(2)(C). 

19. I committed to helping families and individuals with disabilities have the opportunity to lead fulfilling, productive lives. Like you, I realize the importance of 

fully funding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and improving 

special education, related services for children with disabilities. We also agree on 

the importance of accountability for the academic achievement of these children 

through the No Child Left Behind Act. As the 2010 reauthorization of IDEA looms, 

what are your ideas to provide greater access to the general education curriculum, 

increased inclusion in the general education classroom and improved postsecondary 

education and other transition opportunities for all children with disabilities, including those with intellectual disabilities? 

A: We share your commitment to improving educational results for children with 

disabilities. One of the successes of NCLB was that it helped expose the achievement gap by requiring reporting of test scores by each sub-group, including students 

with disabilities. As you know, the ARRA included an additional $12 billion for 

IDEA. We are providing guidance and technical assistance to States and districts 

about strategic ways to invest these one-time funds to improve outcomes for students with disabilities over the next two years and to advance reforms that will 

have even longer-term impact. In addition, we will continue to target our investments under the programs authorized under IDEA, Part D on activities that we believe will support improved outcomes for children with disabilities. These include, 

among others, a center that provides technical assistance on increasing the participation and progress of children with disabilities in assessment and accountability 

systems; a center that provides technical assistance to improve transition planning, 

services, and outcomes for youth with disabilities; and a center that provides technical assistance on school-wide systems of positive behavior supports and interventions. 

20. You said you’d like to set a goal to turn around 1,000 low-performing schools 

a year for each of the next five years. While this goal is admirable, how can a local 

educational agency that wants to close low-performing schools and re-open them 

with new principals and teachers do that in light of collective bargaining agreements and other regulations in place? 

A: The Administration recognizes the importance and necessity of developing and 

implementing reforms through collaboration and partnership with unions. Turning 

around underperforming schools, particularly schools with the greatest need for improvement, will be challenging yet essential work. The Administration is confident 

that collective bargaining agreements will not be a limitation in carrying out effective school turnarounds. 

21. President Obama has called charter schools ‘‘one of the places where innovation occurs’’ and he has called on States to lift caps on the number of charter 

schools. In your testimony before the Committee, you stated that the Department 

would ask States to detail whether they had charter school caps in place in their 

Race to the Top applications. Will the Department provide those States that do not 

have charter school caps with a priority in accessing funding under the new program? 

A: In applying for Race to the Top funds, a State will earn points for ensuring 

successful conditions for high-performing charter schools and other innovative 

schools, as measured by the extent to which the State has a charter school law that 

does not prohibit or effectively inhibit increasing the number of high-performing 

charter schools in the State; the State has laws, statutes, regulations or guidelines 

regarding how charter school authorizers approve, monitor, hold accountable, reauthorize, and close charter schools; the State’s charter schools receive equitable funding compared to traditional public schools; the State provides charter schools with 
72 

funding for facilities, assistance with facilities acquisition, access to public facilities, 

the ability to share in bonds and mill levies, or other supports, and the extent to 

which the State does not impose any facility-related requirements on charter schools 

that are stricter than those applied to traditional public schools; and the State enables LEAs to operate innovative, autonomous public schools other than charter 

schools. The Final Notice/Invitation for Applications for Race to the Top can be 

found at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-27427.pdf and an executive 

summary can be found at http://www.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf. 

22. For the current school year (2008-2009), how many States are in compliance 

with the Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT) definition under ESEA? What impact has 

the HQT definition had on recruiting high quality teachers around the country, including recruiting special education teachers? What impact has the HQT definition 

had on the ability of public charter schools to recruit teachers? What impact has 

the HQT definition had on alternative certification programs? 

A: We do not yet have 2008-09 data on the percentage of teachers that meet the 

statutory definition of a highly qualified teacher. The most recent year for which 

we have those data is the 2007-2008 school year. In that year one State, North Dakota, had 100 percent of its teachers meeting the HQT definition. Nationally, 95 

percent of teachers met the HQT definition in that year compared with 86.5 percent 

in the 2003-2004 school year. 

The Department has not conducted an evaluation that looks systematically at the 

effects of the HQT requirement. We do not believe, however, that it has adversely 

affected schools’ ability to recruit teachers. It can be difficult for rural schools, 

where secondary teachers often provide instruction in multiple subjects, to find 

teachers who are highly qualified in more than one subject area. Similarly, multisubject special education teachers who provide direct instruction in core content 

areas are also difficult to find. But, in general, the data indicate that the requirement has not been an impediment to recruitment or hiring. 

We believe that the HQT definition has had a positive impact on alternative certification programs. The Title I regulations permit a prospective teacher who already has a bachelor’s degree and who has already demonstrated subject competence to be considered highly qualified for a period of up to three years if he or 

she is enrolled in an alternative certification program that meets certain the following requirements: (1) it provides intensive, ongoing professional development; (2) 

it provides structured supervision or mentoring; and (3) it requires that the teacher 

make satisfactory progress through the program. Alternative certification programs 

have been modified so that they meet these requirements. Also, these programs are 

probably more attractive both to enrollees and to the schools that hire them than 

they were before the HQT requirements came into effect, because they provide an 

option whereby schools can hire teachers who are skilled but do not meet full certification requirements and count them as highly qualified. Such programs can be particularly attractive in urban and rural settings and for special education teachers 

who need endorsements in core content areas. 

23. Does the Administration support Adjunct Teacher Corps programs, including 

the new program authorized under the Higher Education Opportunity Act? 

A: The Administration’s budget proposal does not contain a request for the Adjunct Teacher Corps program, which was authorized in P.L. 110-315 but has not yet 

received funding from Congress. Should Congress direct funding to this program, 

the Administration would work closely with Congress to implement and administer 

the program in a manner that makes it as effective as possible. 

24. The budget proposes major changes to the Perkins loan program, transforming 

it into a tool to encourage colleges to control costs. It reminds me of a proposal I 

offered several years ago to use the campus-based aid programs—including Perkins—to achieve that same goal of holding down costs. Unfortunately, my plan was 

rejected by the higher education community. I hope you have better luck than I did, 

and to that end, I have two specific questions. First, will all sectors—including proprietary—be eligible for this program? And second, can you share some specifics 

about how this will work, how you think it will bring costs down, and what other 

plans you may have to get colleges to control their costs? 

A: Under the Administration’s budget proposal, the annual Perkins Loan volume 

would increase from approximately $1 billion per year to $6 billion. This would be 

in the form of lending authority for both undergraduate and graduates, allocated to 

institutions by a formula that may include factors to encourage colleges to control 

their costs and offer need-based aid to limit indebtedness, and reward colleges for 

enrolling and graduating students from low-and middle-income families. Our expanded and modernized Perkins Loan program would retain the current five percent 

interest rate and contain a ‘‘hold harmless’’ for schools currently in the program, 
73 

while eliminating the burden on schools to service and collect on the new Perkins 

loans. 

25. According to the Administration’s 2010 budget, the proposed Early Learning 

Challenge Fund would provide competitive grants to State educational agencies in 

order for those agencies to establish pathways to high quality early childhood education. We have yet to see a legislative proposal for this proposed Fund, but some 

of the activities seem to duplicate those being conducted by State Advisory Councils 

on Early Childhood Education and Care that were authorized under the Head Start 

Act. How do these two proposals differ? And if they are different, how does the Department propose to increase coordination between HHS? 

A: The Administration worked closely with the Committee to develop language for 

the Early Learning Challenge Fund (ELCF). The Administration supports a joint effort between ED and HHS to administer the ELCF. Further, HR 3221 calls for 

states applying for ELCF funds to coordinate activities with the State Advisory 

Councils. 

Rep. Petri 

1. A recent investigation by the New America Foundation found that Nelnet, in 

its November 2006 response to the Inspector General’s audit of Nelnet, cited three 

program reviews of other 9.5 claimants as justification for not reimbursing its own 

illegal claims. In 2007, Secretary Spellings and Undersecretary Sara Martinez Tucker cited the Nelnet response in making a decision to allow Nelnet to keep its illegal 

claims. Now, however, the program reviews have been discredited by the IG in the 

April 2009 audit of Federal Student Aid. Have you asked the Attorney General to 

review the Nelnet settlement? 

A: We have not asked the Attorney General to review the Nelnet settlement, 

which was entered into and became effective in January 2007. The Higher Education Act as in effect prior to the 2008 changes gave the Secretary full authority 

to settle FFELP claims, and she exercised that authority to settle the Department’s 

claim against Nelnet. Whether program reviews conducted by the Department before the Nelnet audit settlement were questionable, as noted in the recent Inspector 

General review, does not invalidate the binding effect of the Nelnet settlement or 

any of the other settlements reached in 2007 regarding claims for improper payments of Special Allowance Payments (SAP). 

2. Have any other 9.5 claimants made reimbursements? Please provide me with 

an update of all 9.5 payments, reimbursements, and any other 9.5 transactions for 

federal fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2008. 

A: Chart Attached at end of document. 

3. The IG’s new, April 2009 audit describes how FSA/Financial Partners’ program 

reviews were mishandled in that they were not reviewed by the Department’s Office 

of General Counsel. A Kentucky 2006 9.5 program review, however, cites a ‘‘legal 

opinion provided’’ but apparently it is from a source other than the Department. 

Would you please provide a copy of the legal opinion cited in that program review? 

A: The ‘‘legal opinion provided’’ to which you refer was not issued by the Department. In response to your question, we asked the Kentucky Higher Education Student Loan Corporation (KHESLC) for a copy of that opinion, and in response to our 

request, KHESLC provided a Word document, a printout of which is attached to 

these responses. 

Rep. Platts 

1. I am a co-chair of the Congressional Arts Caucus and through the Caucus we 

promote the advancement of music and arts education. As you know, students with 

an education rich in the arts have been proven to achieve better grade point averages in core academic subjects, score better on standardized tests, and have lower 

drop-out rates than students without arts education. Even though art is a core curriculum subject, many schools across the nation have eliminated their programs. As 

you develop proposals to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 

how do you plan to ensure that schools continue to offer music and art classes? 

A: The arts are a core academic subject and part of a complete education for all 

students. The arts are also important to American students gaining the 21st century 

skills they will need to succeed in higher education and the global marketplace— 

skills that increasingly demand creativity, perseverance, and problem solving combined with performing well as part of a team. We are committed to taking actions 

to help ensure music and art remain prominent in K-12 education. 

2. A recent GAO Report (Access to Arts Education: Inclusion of Additional Questions in Education’s Planned Research Would Help Explain Why Instruction Time 

Has Decreased for Some Students, Feb. 27, 2009) found that teachers at schools 

identified as needing improvement and those with higher percentages of minority 
74 

students were more likely to report a reduction in instructional time spent on arts 

education. Because of this finding, GAO recommended to the U.S. Department of 

Education that when carrying out its planned study on the impact of No Child Left 

Behind, questions be included regarding changes in arts instructional time and the 

causes of these changes. Do you plan to follow through on this recommendation? 

A: The Department plans to conduct its next study of Title I implementation and 

impact after the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 

We will consider this issue at that time. We would like to note that the GAO report 

found that overall very few elementary teachers reported decreases in the amount 

of instructional time spent on arts education. 

3. When will the other Assistant Secretaries be coming on board? 

A: We are working to staff our leadership positions as quickly and carefully as 

possible. We have two remaining Assistant Secretary positions unfilled. 

4. What will the Administration’s top three priorities be for ESEA reauthorization? 

A: The Secretary is in the middle of a nationwide listening and learning tour to 

hear from parents, students, teachers and other educators about how ESEA is working and how best to reform our Nation’s schools. Their views and many others will 

inform our thinking about reauthorization, and we look forward to working with the 

Committee on that. 

Rep. Price 

1. Some states and local education agencies have passed legislation or signed contracts that prevent teacher compensation systems from taking student performance 

into account. Under the Teacher Incentive Fund, does the Administration believe 

student achievement should be taken into account when designing performancebased compensation systems? Will these states and LEAs that do not include student performance as a factor be ineligible for Teacher Incentive Fund grants? 

A: The appropriations language that authorizes the Teacher Incentive Fund requires that the teacher and principal compensation systems supported ‘‘consider 

gains in student academic achievement.’’ Thus, a system that does not consider student achievement would not be eligible. We intend to give priority to comprehensive, 

aligned approaches that support improved teacher and principal effectiveness; ensure equitable distribution of educators; and that identify the best teachers to serve 

as leaders in their schools. 

2. Recently, Randi Weingarten, President of the American Federation of Teachers 

(AFT), said that Federally-financed performance-based compensation grants be collectively bargained as part of the contracts. Will the Administration mandate such 

a requirement under the Teacher Incentive Fund? What about in non-bargaining 

states—will it apply? 

A: Involving teachers in the design of differentiated compensation plans ensures 

that teachers contribute their expertise towards designing the best possible plan, 

leads to wider understanding and acceptance of the proposed plan, and results in 

more successful implementation of the plan. Thus, we believe that teachers and, in 

districts that have unions and collective bargaining agreements, union leaders, must 

be involved in developing the compensation plan supported through the Teacher Incentive Fund. 

Rep. Souder 

1. How does the Administration plan to stem the need for drug treatment in the 

future by eliminating prevention efforts such as the State Grants portion of the Safe 

and Drug Free Schools and Communities (SDFSC) program, one of the only prevention programs that exist in the federal government? Such cuts would decimate the 

school-based prevention infrastructures currently in place, leave the vast majority 

of our nation’s schools and students with no drug and violence prevention programming at all, and provide large grants to a very small number of recipients that 

would not be sustainable over time. What do you plan to do to correct this? 

A: The Administration has concluded that the necessarily limited Federal resources available to support school-based drug prevention efforts are best targeted 

as provided for in our FY 2010 budget. Based on the reviews of the State Grants 

program, evidence that demonstrates the program’s effectiveness has not been identified, and we continue to believe that the program fails to target schools and students most needing help, and generally spreads funds too thinly at the local level 

to support quality interventions that are likely to produce significant outcomes. 

Funding the continuation of current infrastructures is not a wise investment if those 

infrastructures are not effective. 

We believe that the Federal government has an important role to play in supporting the development of safe and drug-free learning environments for our stu-
75 

dents, but that this work must be done in partnership with State and local authorities. Realistically, Federal funding alone will never be sufficient to address the 

range of activities and services needed to keep our students safe and drug free. 

The Administration believes better results may be obtained by redirecting a portion of this funding to Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities National Activities for direct support, in amounts sufficient to make a real difference, for targeted school safety and drug prevention and education activities that will add to the 

national knowledge base on program effectiveness and best practices. 

2. I have heard that the Administration is committed to streamlining the FAFSA, 

a priority that I strongly endorse. As you know, the FAFSA currently contains a 

question about convictions for prior drug offenses, which is used to enforce the drugfree student loan law enacted by Congress with bipartisan support in 1998 [HEA 

Section 484(r)]. The purpose of this law is to act as a deterrent, so that when pressured to use drugs, college students can respond that they don’t want to lose their 

student loans. Although even drug legalization groups have admitted that the question is the ‘‘only obvious mechanism for enforcing [the law]’’, in the past, there have 

been efforts to remove this question from the FAFSA, which would effectively kill 

the statute by drastically reducing awareness and significantly weakening its ability 

to deter drug use. Is the administration committed to maintaining the drug question 

on the FAFSA and continuing to enforce the drug-free student loan law? 

A: We have reviewed each and every question on the form and are looking for 

ways to order the questions on the web-based form so that applicants—especially 

those applying for the first time—are not discouraged by the length and complexity 

of the form. Currently, applicants are asked whether they were convicted ‘‘for the 

possession or sale of illegal drugs for an offense that occurred while you were receiving federal student aid (such as grants, loans, or work-study)?’’ This question is confusing to anyone who has not been previously enrolled in postsecondary education 

or received federal financial aid. Therefore, we are proposing to revise the 2010-11 

FAFSA-on-the-Web to not ask this question for first-time college students. 

Rep. Thompson 

1. The Administration has focused a lot of attention on immediate job training related to the current economic downturn. What is the Administration’s plan for 

longer term career education and training to address the shortage in skilled labor 

the country will be facing as the baby boomer generation gets closer to retirement? 

We have known this has been coming for a while; what is going to be done? 

A: We are dedicated to investing in career education and training and will continue to work with Congress to build and support innovative programs that will lead 

to more students completing degrees or certificates that provide the skills needed 

for good jobs in high-demand sectors of a regional economy. 

2. I have read that you have recently been on the road and welcomed comment 

from rural schools and communities; I can say that representing a rural district just 

larger than the State of New Jersey, I appreciate your initiative. While you have 

only been in your position for a short period of time, can you provide me details 

on what initiatives your department is putting forth for rural education? 

A: The Administration is looking at a lot of different issues that affect rural school 

districts and continues to expand outreach into rural communities as evident with 

the Rural Tour that the President has helped coordinate with his Cabinet. Recruiting and retaining teachers, community college investment, and broadband access 

are some of the common refrains that come from these forums and are concerns that 

the Department shares with its rural constituents. 

The Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP) authorizes two programs to 

assist rural school districts in carrying out activities to help improve the quality of 

teaching and learning in their schools. The Small, Rural School Achievement program provides formula funds to rural school districts that serve small numbers of 

students, and the Rural and Low-Income School program provides funds to rural 

school districts that serve concentrations of poor students, regardless of the district’s 

size. Funds appropriated for REAP are divided equally between these two programs. 

The Administration’s budget request would maintain support for rural, often geographically isolated, districts that face significant challenges in implementing ESEA 

accountability requirements. The proposed notice for the Investing in Innovation 

Fund also proposes a competitive priority for those working to improve educational 

opportunities in rural communities, knowing that these communities face specific 

challenges. 
76 

Rep. Wilson 

1. Will student debt increase for borrowers of Perkins Loans due to the accrual 

of interest from the origination of the loan as opposed to current policy when the 

student graduates? 

A: Although the accrual of interest during the in-school period may increase a student’s debt at the time of graduation, we hope most borrowers under the expanded 

Perkins Loan program will use the loans to replace private loans for which interest 

accrues during school at significantly higher interest rates than the fixed 5 percent 

available under Perkins, resulting in lower debt than they would have otherwise incurred. 

2. Congress has specifically mandated through law that certain ‘‘high-need’’ professions are eligible for loan cancellation under the currently structured Perkins 

Loan program. Eligible individuals can apply for up to $5000 of their Perkins Loan 

to be canceled in exchange for 5 years of public service. The Obama Administration 

is proposing to switch that to total loan forgiveness for 10 years of service AND 10 

years of repayment. Do you have data that shows if it costs students more, the federal government more, or both to make that change? 

A: The Administration’s proposal would increase the size of the Perkins Loan pro- gram from $1 billion to $6 billion annually. Most individual borrowers—those who 

receive a loan as a result of the proposed expansion of the program—would be much 

better off under the Administration’s proposal, as they could use their Perkins 

Loans to replace costly private loans that have no forgiveness or cancellation provisions. A relatively small number of borrowers—those who would have received a 

Perkins Loan in the absence of the Administration’s proposal and who would have 

qualified for loan forgiveness under those provisions—would receive less generous 

benefits than those available under current law. 

It is important to note that the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 

created the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program to encourage individuals to 

enter and continue to work full-time in public service jobs. These loan forgiveness 

provisions will be available to borrowers under the new Perkins Loan program and 

are broader than the targeted cancellations in the existing Perkins Loan program. 

Under this program, borrowers may qualify for forgiveness of the remaining balance 

due on their eligible Federal student loans after they have made 120 payments on 

those loans under certain repayment plans while employed full-time by certain public service employers. The borrower must be employed full-time (in any position) by 

a public service organization, or must be serving in a full-time AmeriCorps or Peace 

Corps position. 

Rep. Altmire 

1. In the U.S. Department of Education Budget Highlights, there is a focus on college completion which supports ‘‘$2.5 billion for a new five-year Access and Completion Incentive Fund to support innovative State efforts to help low-income students 

succeed and complete their college education.’’ As you are aware, there are presently 

in place TRIO programs that are designed to help low-income students succeed and 

complete their college education. These programs do a great job at accomplishing 

these goals-but the programs are severely underfunded. Would the Administration 

consider allocating a portion of this $2.5 billion to expand existing and very successful TRIO programs so that we can expand programs that actually work while at the 

same time seeking out new and innovative programs? 

A: The TRIO programs are designed to help improve college enrollment, retention, 

and completion rates, but do not provide a complete solution. The College Access 

and Completion Fund, on the other hand, is more comprehensive. Through this program, we hope to stimulate strategic initiatives by States and consortia of higher 

education institutions to systemically increase college access and completion rates 

far beyond current outcomes. In addition, there are a number of demonstrated and 

promising strategies developed by non-profits that should be considered for expansion in order to increase college access and completion rates. 

2. One issue that arises from the President’s budget proposal is that currently foreign schools are only eligible for the FFEL Program. Will the President’s legislative 

proposal ensure that foreign schools also be made eligible for the Direct Loan Program and that appropriate steps are taken to ensure that they are able to participate on behalf of their American students? 

A: Section 211 of HR 3221 makes students and parents of students attending institutions located outside the United States eligible for the Direct Loan Program. 

Rep. Courtney 

1. Does ARRA require states to adopt their 2010 budgets before becoming eligible 

to receive funding? 
77 

A: No, a State does not have to adopt a 2010 budget to receive funding under the 

State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) program. In the Application for Initial Funding under the SFSF program, the Department indicated that a State could provide 

projected levels of State support for elementary and secondary education and public 

institutions of higher education. The Department further noted that the projected 

levels could be based on such data as the Governor’s budget request or preliminary 

budget or appropriations legislation. 

2. In your testimony you stated that states that show progress in meeting the 

goals (‘‘the four pillars’’) of the SFSF will be able to qualify for the Race to the Top 

funding. Is it correct to assume that states who are dilatory in applying for SFSF 

and demonstrating compliance with SFSF’s goals will suffer in the competitive grant 

process set forth in Race to the Top? 

A: The Race to the Top’s Final Notice/Invitation for Applications includes two eligibility requirements, one of which is that a State’s application for funding under 

Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the SFSF must be approved by the Department prior to 

the State being awarded a Race to the Top grant. The Final Notice also includes 

an Absolute Priority (meaning that an application must meet this priority to receive 

funds) for applications that comprehensively and coherently address all of the four 

education reform areas specified in the ARRA as well as the State Success Factors 

Criteria in order to demonstrate that the State and its participating LEAs are taking a systemic approach to education reform. The State must demonstrate in its application sufficient LEA participation and commitment to successfully implement 

and achieve the goals in its plans; and it must describe how the State, in collaboration with its participating LEAs, will use Race to the Top and other funds to increase student achievement, decrease the achievement gaps across student subgroups, and increase the rates at which students graduate from high school prepared for college and careers. 

3. Can SFSF be used to supplant state fiscal year 2009 expenditures within the 

state budget? 

A: While there is nothing in the statute specifically prohibiting a State from using 

SFSF funds to supplant State expenditures, we believe that just as the Federal Government has taken serious steps to help save jobs and drive reforms, each State has 

an obligation to abide by the spirit of the law and play its part in spurring today’s 

economy and protecting our children’s education. We expect that States, local school 

districts, and colleges and universities will use Stabilization funds to avert layoffs 

and cuts to essential public services, and implement the education reforms highlighted in the ARRA. The funds should not be used to reduce State support for elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education. In addition, a State must maintain State support for elementary and secondary education and public institutions 

of higher education in each of fiscal years (FYs) 2009, 2010, 2011, at least at the 

level that the State provided in FY 2006. 

4. Is there a way a state can account for state fiscal stabilization funds as nonfederal funds? If so, how can a state apply for permission to do that? It appears that 

this is possible under section 14012 (d) of the ARRA. 

A: The statute does provide the Department with the authority to give prior approval to enable a State to treat Stabilization funds that are used for elementary, 

secondary, or postsecondary education as non-Federal funds for the purpose of any 

requirement to maintain fiscal effort under any other program that the Department 

administers. To receive such approval, however, a State first must demonstrate that 

it has not disproportionately reduced support for education. If a State did reduce 

the proportion of total State revenues spent on education, we will consider whether 

there were any exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances contributing to the yearto-year decreases, the extent of the decline in available financial resources, and any 

changes in demand for services. In addition, the State must be able to demonstrate 

that the portion of its Stabilization funds that it seeks to treat as non-Federal funds 

to meet the MOE requirements of other Federal programs was spent in such a manner that had the Stabilization funds been non-Federal funds, the Stabilization funds 

would have been permitted to be used in determining the State’s or LEA’s compliance with the MOE requirement of that other program. We also want to note that 

the receipt of such approval does not reduce the level of effort required by the State 

in the following fiscal year. 

5. Does the ARRA allow use of state fiscal stabilization funds to supplant current 

education expenditures at the local level to achieve the Maintenance of Effort for 

additional Title I and IDEA funds? If so, how can localities apply for permission to 

do so? 

A: As with States, a local educational agency (LEA) may, with prior approval, 

treat Stabilization funds as non-Federal funds for the purpose of any requirement 

to maintain fiscal effort under any other program that the Department administers. 
78 

Also, as with States, we will be concerned if an LEA reduces the proportion of total 

revenues that are spent on education, and will take that into consideration in deciding whether to allow a State or LEA to treat Stabilization funds as non-Federal 

funds for MOE purposes of other Federal programs. 

Rep. Grijalva 

1. Given that Latino students are a significant and rapidly growing segment of 

the student population, are there plans to make a stronger effort to appoint Latinos 

and Latinas to positions in the Department of Education? 

A: The Department and the Administration are committed to promoting a workforce with diverse backgrounds and we recognize the need for senior staff to understand the issues facing the growing Latino student population. 

2. After seeing the Recovery Act and the President’s FY10 budget, the Hispanic 

community has been concerned that the new administration has not prioritized 

English language learners, or the Latino student population. How does the President’s education agenda specifically plan on addressing the needs of Latino and ELL 

students? 

A: In addition to Title III of the ESEA, which is the major elementary and secondary education program for ELL students, the budget provides significant increases in school improvement grants and a high school graduation initiative. Both 

of these proposals aim to assist in turning around low-performing schools. Many of 

the schools targeted by these funds are schools that low-income and Latino students 

attend. Using these funds and working with States, school districts, communities 

and parents, we can make a difference for Latino students. The Department’s Office 

for Civil Rights also will vigorously enforce long-standing policy under Title VI of 

the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to ensure that limited English proficient children receive equal educational opportunities. The budget also provides significant increases 

for the High School Equivalency Program, the College Assistance Migrant Program, 

the English Literacy and Civics Education program, and the Adult Education State 

Grants program, all of which serve Latino and ELL populations. 

3. The President’s budget proposed to eliminate the Even Start Family Literacy 

program. If funding for this program is eliminated, this will affect 59,000 parents 

and children struggling with illiteracy and poverty, more than half (53%) of whom 

are Latino. How will the President’s education agenda ensure that families, particularly Latino families who have low literacy levels, have access to essential services, 

like those provided by the Even Start program? (GED, ESL classes for adults and 

early learning programs for young children) 

A: The Administration is committed to funding high-quality services for limited 

English proficient children and their parents, and has demonstrated this commitment throughout the budget. For example, the Administration believes that children 

need and deserve exposure to English language and literacy-rich environments prior 

to entering kindergarten and has requested almost $1 billion for early childhood 

programs at the Department of Education. That request includes $500 million for 

the new Title I Early Childhood Grants and $162.5 million for Early Reading First, 

in addition to over $7.2 billion in funding for Head Start at the Department of 

Health and Human Services. The Administration greatly appreciates the inclusion 

of the $8 billion for the Early Learning Challenge Fund in HR 3221, which along 

with of these other large investments in early childhood programs will benefit 

Latino children. In addition, the Administration requested $730 million for the 

English Language Acquisition State Grants program to support the Department’s 

commitment to supporting the needs of children and youth who are English language learners. Further, the Department has requested over $628 million for Adult 

Basic and Literacy Education State Grants, a $74 million increase, to support 

English literacy, adult basic education, and family literacy services, and a $2.5 million increase for the HEP and CAMP programs. 

We believe that Latino and other families deserve higher-quality services that will 

help them to develop the skills they need to be successful. Based on the results of 

three national evaluations, we believe that Even Start is not delivering those results. The most recent evaluation concluded that, while Even Start participants 

made small gains, they did not perform better than the comparison group that did 

not receive Even Start services. As a result, the Administration has chosen to direct 

the resources to other efforts that would better address the needs of children and 

families. 

4. The President has proposed State Early Learning Challenge Grants to improve 

the quality of early care and education systems, as a major part of his education 

platform. Less than half, or 43%, of Hispanic children ages zero-to-three attend a 

center-based early care and education (ECE) program, compared to 66% of Black 

children and 59% of White children. How will these grants be structured to ensure 
79 

that 1) Latino students have more access to these programs, and 2) be designed to 

meet the unique needs of young English language learners and their families? 

A: We will ensure that the needs of all students including Latinos and other 

English Language Learners are addressed in the implementation of the Early 

Learning Challenge Fund. We look forward to working with Congress on any input 

you or others may have. 

5. Latinos are the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. student population and represent the future of the U.S. workforce. The passage of the ‘‘DREAM Act’’ will increase educational attainment among Latinos in the United States, affording them 

adequate preparation for work. In turn, the nation’s economy will thrive. Is the 

‘‘DREAM Act’’ an immediate priority for the new administration? 

A: The Administration supports the DREAM Act. 

6. Farm worker, migrant, and seasonal worker students are some of the most disadvantaged and at-risk students in the country. They have one of the highest dropout rates and encounter tremendous obstacles in completing high school and pursuing higher education. The High School Equivalency Program (HEP) and the College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) have been successful in helping to close 

the access and completion gaps for many low-income, minority farm worker migrant 

and seasonal worker students. After years of level funding and the loss of 20 HEP/ 

CAMP programs since 2004, I was pleased that the President proposed a $2.5 million increase for the HEP/CAMP program from $34.16 million in FY 2009 to $36.61 

million for FY 2010. The Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) recognized the 

importance of the HEP/CAMP program by increasing its authorization level $75 million. Can we expect the Administration’s continued support of the HEP/CAMP program in the form of increased funding proposals in the future? 

A: We were very pleased to request an increase for the High School Equivalency 

(HEP) and College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP). We agree that these programs provide important support for helping individuals from migrant populations 

to receive their GED credential and to complete their first year of postsecondary 

education, and we will consider their needs as we set priorities for our future budget 

requests. The Administration’s fiscal year 2010 budget request also provided $905 million for Federal TRIO programs and $628 million for Adult Education State grants, an 

increase of $74 million for that program, to help these populations. 

7. The President has also proposed a drop-out prevention initiative that promises 

innovation and targets those schools with the highest drop-out rates. How is this 

initiative different from the Bush Administration’s drop-out prevention initiative 

under NCLB? What role will community-based organizations have in this initiative? 

A: The proposed High School Graduation Initiative would provide assistance to 

help schools implement comprehensive efforts to increase high school graduation 

rates. The program would award 5-year grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) 

that propose comprehensive approaches that focus on at least a cluster of 3 to 5 

schools and address the obstacles that impede students’ ability to graduate. LEAs 

would implement plans that reflect community-based needs assessments and include a plan for ensuring program sustainability. Grantee plans would also identify 

how many students will likely need additional support to graduate, how many dropouts leave school a few versus many credits shy of graduation, and how many students graduate unprepared for success in college or the workforce. Activities carried 

out with grant funds might include monitoring early warning indicators that a student is at risk of dropping out. Such early warning systems might: (1) focus on the 

needs of students transitioning from middle school to high school; (2) use identifiers 

such as low attendance rates, entering ninth grade with achievement scores more 

than three years behind in a core subject area, failing one or more core courses during middle school or ninth grade, repeating ninth grade, or being over-age and 

under-credited during ninth or tenth grade; and (3) begin before middle school. 

Early warning systems would seek to effectively identify those students at risk of 

not graduating on time and would provide schools and LEAs with the information 

necessary to target interventions of the type and level necessary to support students’ on-time graduation. Comprehensive prevention and reentry plans might include, among other things: (1) a focus on the needs of students transitioning from 

middle to high school, (2) alternative scheduling options, (3) alternative programs 

that address both stable (e.g., family income, neighborhood) and alterable (e.g., attendance, motivation, grade level) characteristics, (4) partnerships with community 

organizations to provide support services, and (5) small learning communities. Comprehensive plans for over-age, under-credited, or reentry students might also, among 

other things, eliminate seat requirements, provide competency- or proficiency-based 

credits mapped against State graduation requirements, and allow for accelerated 

learning opportunities. This approach, which requires a comprehensive and coordi-
80 

nated community strategy, also allows considerable local flexibility and reflects the 

complexity of the dropout problem, for which there is no ‘‘silver-bullet’’ solution. We 

expect that community-based organizations will play an important role in all of the 

projects funded by the proposed High School Graduation Initiative. 

8. No plan to address the high school dropout crisis will be effective without an 

adequate middle grade intervention to aid the most troubled feeder middle schools 

and elementary schools of the most troubled high schools. In what way will the high 

school reform proposals include the middle grades? 

A: Struggling schools, including middle schools, have had difficulty turning 

around in large part because of a lack of resources. The Department’s proposal to 

provide $1.5 billion for School Improvement Grants (a $1 billion increase from last 

year)—as well as the $3 billion for such grants in the Recovery Act—will help those 

schools move past simply being labeled as needing improvement and provide them 

with the resources they need to implement effective reforms and raise student 

achievement. LEAs should also have the flexibility to direct limited funds and other 

assistance to their schools that have the most need and would most benefit from 

turn-around efforts. Specifically, the Department’s FY 2010 budget would focus 40 

percent of the FY 2010 School Improvement Grants on dropout factories and their 

feeder middle schools, which will focus funds more precisely on the schools with the 

greatest need. 

9. I am concerned about the problem of bullying faced by students, including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students in the country. What action is the Department of Education taking to address bullying in the nation’s schools? 

A: We share your concern about the potentially terrible impact of bullying and 

harassing behavior on students, whether or not the behavior focuses on sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religion, race, ethnicity, language background, or 

any of the other issues that bullies use to intimidate their targets. Bullying and harassment prevent young people from focusing on their studies and thereby disrupt 

the learning process; as such, they are an education issue of the highest priority for 

our Administration. We believe that schools must provide safe, disciplined, and nurturing environments for all of their students and establish school climates that are 

conducive to learning and healthy youth development. 

A new initiative concerning school culture and climate included in the President’s 

fiscal year (FY) 2010 budget request would be designed to support efforts to address 

problems related to disruption and disorder in schools, as well as to assist schools 

that are experiencing serious violent and criminal behavior. The budget requests 

$100 million in FY 2010 for new grants to encourage the use of research-based 

interventions as well as the involvement of partners from the community, including 

representatives from law enforcement, juvenile justice, and public mental health 

systems that also frequently interact with troubled students. We expect that applicants would propose strategies to reduce bullying and harassing behaviors, as well 

as to provide needed supports for victims, as well as bullies, that can then be used 

as models for other districts. 

We look forward to the opportunity to develop and implement this new initiative, 

but also want to share information with you about other relevant activities. For example, some existing Department of Education programs, such as the Safe Schools/ 

Healthy Students initiative (implemented in conjunction with the Departments of 

Health and Human Services (HHS) and Justice), also provide for bullying prevention efforts in schools and communities. We have also provided support for the development and implementation of an anti-bullying initiative sponsored by the 

Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), part of HHS. The initiative 

includes the development of materials and technical assistance for children and 

adult audiences, and includes some materials that specifically address bullying and 

harassment of lesbian gay, bisexual and transgender youth. Information about the 

‘‘Stop Bullying Now’’ campaign has been broadly disseminated and is available online at: http://www.stopbullyingnow.hrsa.gov/kids/. 

The Department’s Office for Civil Rights also plays an important role in combating bullying and sexual harassment through its enforcement of Title IX of the 

Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX). Since Title IX protects a person from sex 

discrimination, both male and female students are protected from sexual harassment engaged in by a school’s employees, other students, or third parties. Although 

Title IX does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, it protects gay and lesbian students from sexual harassment as it does all other students. 

As part of the Department’s enforcement of Title IX, we will provide guidance and 

technical assistance to ensure that districts and postsecondary institutions understand their responsibilities to prevent and end sex-based harassment regardless of 

the real or perceived sexual orientation of the victim. 
81 

While many students who are the victims of bullying and harassing behavior are 

able to continue to function in spite of the pain inflicted by bullies, in some cases 

the intensity of the harassment, lack of family or other support, or fragility of a student can result in the kind of tragedies identified in your question. Schools also play 

an important role in preventing adolescent suicides. Our colleagues at the Substance 

Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), part of HHS, are implementing a variety of activities designed to assist schools and communities in understanding and preventing this tragic behavior, including operating a technical assistance center that develops training and technical assistance materials and activities that focus on the most up-to-date information about effective suicide prevention 

efforts. Details about these efforts and the valuable services that are providing to 

help reduce the incidence of youth suicide are available online at: http:// 

www.sprc.org/about—sprc/about—site.asp. 

Rep. Hare 

1. In the Administration’s education budget proposal, there seems to be a policy 

shift away from formula grants (cuts to Title I, Part A and Education Technology 

and the elimination of Safe and Drug Free Schools State grants) to competitive 

grants (new Title I Early Childhood Grants, the High School Graduation Initiative, 

new monies for national programs under Safe and Drug Free Schools). I am afraid 

that this shift will represent a loss of funding to rural school districts that do not 

have the resources to apply for competitive grants. What steps is your department 

going to take to ensure that rural school districts are equitably funded, especially 

under the President’s new proposals? 

A: We do not anticipate that the proposed funding shifts would have a negative 

impact on rural districts. In the past, under our large competitive grant programs, 

we have typically seen a fairly equitable distribution in the mix of urban, suburban, 

and rural grantees. In response to concerns such as yours, we have analyzed the 

mix of recipients and haven’t found that rural districts are disadvantaged. 

We will continue to work with Congress and the States to ensure that all types 

of LEAs have an equitable opportunity to receive support under the President’s initiatives. 

2. As a policy, Congress targets dollars under Title I to concentrations of poverty 

under the argument that it is harder to serve large groups of poor students. However, under the Title I funding formula, we define concentrations of poverty as percentages or numbers, whichever is higher. This results in larger less poor school districts getting more money per poor child then smaller, higher-poverty school districts. What recommendations would you make to instill a greater sense of equity 

when funding children in poverty? 

A: The Secretary is in the midst of a listening and learning tour to seek input 

and begin framing issues for the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act (ESEA), but we are not yet ready to make specific recommendations on changes to ESEA. We look forward to working with Congress on 

that effort. 

3. Mr. Secretary, soon I will reintroduce the Positive Behavior for Effective 

Schools Act, which opens up federal resources to school districts that want to establish or expand the use of PBIS (Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports) and 

provides teachers with training to effectively manage classrooms using PBIS strategies. As you may know, President Obama introduced this same bill in the Senate. 

Do you support this legislation and if so, is the administration committed to making 

this a priority? 

A: Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) is an important preventative approach that can increase the capacity of the school staff to support children 

with the most complex behavioral needs, thus reducing the instances that require 

intensive interventions. We share your support for strategies that assist teachers to 

effectively manage their classrooms. These strategies provide an opportunity for 

teachers and students to concentrate on learning and not to be distracted by frequent conduct and behavior problems, and also often help identify individual teachers who need to improve their classroom management skills as well as individual 

students who may require learning supports more significant than those can be 

readily provided in the classroom. 

We encourage schools to think comprehensively about the kinds of strategies that 

they need to implement in order to establish safe and nurturing learning environments for all students. A new initiative concerning school culture and climate included in the President’s fiscal year (FY) 2010 budget request is designed to support 

those kinds of comprehensive efforts to address problems related to significant levels 

of disruption and disorder in schools, as well as to assist schools that are experiencing serious violent and criminal behavior. The budget requests $100 million in 
82 

FY 2010 for new grants to school districts experiencing the most significant problems. The program will encourage the use of research-based interventions as well 

as the involvement of partners from the community, including representatives from 

law enforcement, juvenile justice, and public mental health systems that also frequently interact with troubled students. We expect that applicants will propose 

strategies to improve student behavior, including classroom management strategies 

for teachers, as well as a broader range of interventions designed to improve school 

climate and culture. The Department also funds the Center on Positive Behavioral 

Interventions and Supports. 

Rep. Hirono 

1. According to 2006 data, there are three dropout factories in my district and five 

total in the state of Hawaii. I share your concern about low performing schools and 

want to know how best to help them. I recognize that dropout factories are not just 

a high school problem, as there are other factors in the elementary and middle 

school years affecting what happens to students in high school. When states submit 

applications for ARRA grants, including for State Fiscal Stabilization Funds and 

Race to the Top funds, how does the Department of Education plan to evaluate state 

applications with respect to dropout factories? How specific will your actions be in 

pushing states to address the problem of dropout factories? 

A: The President and the Department are committed to increasing the number of 

students who graduate from high school prepared for the challenges of work and 

postsecondary education. To support that goal, the Administration has requested in 

its fiscal year 2010 budget request $50 million for a High School Graduation Initiative. The Initiative would support innovative efforts to drive better high school graduation rates through prevention and reentry systems for students at risk of not 

graduating. In addition, the ARRA provided $3 billion for School Improvement 

Grants. The final requirements for School Improvement Grants emphasize the use 

of these funds in a State’s persistently lowest-achieving schools, to ensure that limited Federal funds go to the schools in which they are most needed. The definition 

of persistently lowest-achieving schools includes high schools with graduation rates 

below 60 percent over a number of years. 

States are not required to address specifically ‘‘dropout factories’’ in their applications for funding under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund program. However, 

States will be required to publicly identify their lowest performing Title I eligible 

high schools and assure that it will take steps to, among other things, provide targeted, intensive support and effective interventions to turn around schools identified 

for corrective action and restructuring. 

With regard to the Race to the Top program, the application includes an Absolute 

Priority (meaning that an application must meet this priority to receive funds) for 

applications that comprehensively and coherently address all of the four education 

reform areas specified in the ARRA as well as the State Success Factors Criteria 

in order to demonstrate that the State and its participating LEAs are taking a systemic approach to education reform. The State must demonstrate in its application 

sufficient LEA participation and commitment to successfully implement and achieve 

the goals in its plans; and it must describe how the State, in collaboration with its 

participating LEAs, will use Race to the Top and other funds to increase student 

achievement, decrease the achievement gaps across student subgroups, and increase 

the rates at which students graduate from high school prepared for college and careers. Under Race to the Top, a State will earn points for the extent to which it 

has demonstrated its ability to increase high school graduation rates, as well as for 

the extent to which it has the authority to intervene directly in the persistently lowest-achieving schools (which include high schools with graduation rates of less than 

60 percent) and for the extent to which its application includes a high-quality plan 

to identify such schools and support LEAs in turning them around by implementing 

one of four school intervention models. 

2. There are critical times in a child’s development when positive intervention 

makes a real difference. We know that one of these times where resources matter 

is the preschool years. I have a bill, the PRE-K Act (H.R. 702) that would create 

a grant program to support states’ efforts in providing high quality early education. 

What, in your view, are the other critical years when attention and resources would 

make a difference? Do the President’s programmatic and funding requests reflect 

this approach of investing in the critical points in a child’s development? 

A: The Administration believes that each year of a child’s life, including birth 

through age five, is crucial to their success in school and beyond. The Administration outlined five pillars for reforming our education system that are guiding both 

the implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the President’s fiscal year 2010 budget request for the Department of Education. The first 
83 

pillar is investing in early childhood education and expanding access to quality 

childcare. The second is challenging States to adopt world-class college- and careerready academic standards and assessments. The third is to recruit, prepare, and reward effective teachers. The fourth is promoting innovation and excellence in America’s schools by expanding charter schools, extending learning time, and turning 

around low-performing schools. The fifth is increasing the number of people pursuing higher education and earning a postsecondary degree or certificate. These pillars reflect that the Administration is committed to supporting our children and 

youth beginning at birth and continuing through adulthood. 

In the FY 2010 budget, the Administration proposed the following new investments that would support our youngest children (from birth through age 5): • $500 million for a new Title I Early Childhood Grants program to help jumpstart expanded investment of ESEA Title I, Part A funds in early childhood education. • $300 million for a new Early Learning Challenge Fund that would provide competitive grants to States to develop and/or refine their statewide early learning systems for children from birth through age five. • $10 million for the Promise Neighborhoods initiative to provide 1-year planning 

grants to non-profit, community-based organizations to develop plans for comprehensive neighborhood programs that provide the necessary support for children 

and youth from birth through college so that they may succeed in school and beyond. 

• $162.5 million for Early Reading First, an increase of $50 million to expand 

support for high-quality, research-based early literacy services for preschool children. 

The Administration also greatly appreciates the $8 billion in HR 3221 for the 

Early Learning Challenge Fund. 

Rep. Holt 

1. Under the ARRA you have a $4.35 billion Race to the Top Fund, what plans 

do you have to use that fund to improve STEM and foreign language education? 

A: States that include in their Race to the Top application a high-quality plan to 

emphasize science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education will 

receive a competitive preference. The Race to the Top application also provides for 

an Invitational Priority for applications in which the State’s participating LEAs seek 

to create the conditions for reform and innovation as well as the conditions for 

learning by providing schools with flexibility and autonomy in various areas, including implementing new structures and formats for the school day or year that result 

in increased learning time in core academic subjects, including foreign languages. 

The Final Notice/Invitation for Applications on Race to the Top can be found at 

http://www.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/final-priorities.pdf, and an executive 

summary can be found at http://www.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf. 

2. While science is being tested, only reading and mathematics assessments are 

currently counted in AYP. What are your views on the inclusion of science in AYP? 

A: We are still in the process of getting feedback from a multitude of stakeholders 

regarding the ESEA reauthorization. The Secretary is in the middle of a listening 

and learning tour to gain input from students, teachers, principals, administrators, 

parents, and others who are at the ground level about what needs to be done to 

reform our education system. We recognize the importance of standards in science, 

but how we can best implement them is still being discussed and considered. 

3. Given your statement that ‘‘science education is central to our broad effort to 

restore American leadership in Education worldwide’’ will you work to increase 

funding for the Mathematics and Science partnerships program and restore it to its 

pre NCLB funding levels? 

A: The Mathematics and Science Partnerships program was first funded in 2002 

at $12.5 million. It has been funded at $179 million since 2008. We believe that this 

is an appropriate level of funding for the program in FY 2010 to continue to help 

prepare American students to compete in the global, high-tech economy. 

4. The reauthorization of the Higher Education Act established a Deputy Assistant Secretary for International and Foreign Language Education, will you elevate 

this to a full Assistant Secretary position under the authority you have? 

A: As you know, Andre Lewis has been appointed as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for International and Foreign Language Education. The Administration is 

committed to ensuring that students are prepared to compete in the global economy 

and participate in the international community. The Department is currently undertaking a review of all Department programs related to foreign languages and international issues and projects. 
84 

Once that review has been completed, the Secretary will determine whether any 

reorganization or personnel changes are needed. 

5. What plans do you have to improve foreign language instruction in elementary 

schools, and what foreign language reforms would you want to see included in ESEA 

reauthorization? 

A: Increasing the number of elementary school students learning foreign languages is critical to our international competitiveness. A 2002 survey of large U.S. 

corporations found that nearly 30 percent failed to fully exploit international business opportunities due to a lack of employees with foreign language skills. Also, 

data from the National Security Education Program and the American Council of 

Teachers of Russian show that the median speaking proficiency of American college 

graduates, before study abroad, in five languages critical to national security (Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Russian) is 1 on a scale of 5. As Superintendent 

of the Chicago Public Schools, the Secretary included $1 million in the fiscal year 

2009 budget to expand the teaching of Arabic, Chinese and Russian to kindergarten 

through high school students. The Department of Education’s fiscal year 2010 budget request of $26.3 million for the Foreign Language Assistance program would 

maintain the previous year’s increase for grants to LEAs, States, and partnerships 

of LEAs and institutions of higher education to increase the quality and quantity 

of foreign language instruction in the United States. We would be pleased to work 

with you and other members of the Committee during the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act on this issue. 

Rep. McCarthy 

1. What is going to be the new name for the No Child Left Behind Law? 

A: As you may know, the Secretary is in the middle of a Listening and Learning 

Tour, and has been seeking input for the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), and is open to suggestions. 

2. Why does the department think it is a good idea to zero out the State grants 

for Safe and Drug Free Schools (SDFS) and transfer a portion of that funding to 

the national programs? 

A: The overall purpose of the SDFSC programs is an important one. However, the 

SDFSC State Grant program has not been shown to be effective, does not adequately target schools most needing help, and generally spreads funds too thinly at 

the local level to support quality interventions. 

By comparison, SDFSC National Programs does not have these design flaws and 

limitations and is better structured to support targeted, high-quality interventions. 

Accordingly, the Administration proposes to redirect $100 million from the SDFSC 

State Grant program to SDFSC National Programs in order to fund direct grants 

to local educational agencies (LEAs), or to other organizations in partnership with 

LEAs, to support new approaches to assisting schools in fostering a safe and drugfree learning environment, particularly by using approaches designed to change 

school culture and climate and thereby improve character and discipline and reduce 

drug use, crime, and violence. The President’s 2010 budget also includes an additional $183.6 million for SDFSC National Programs, most of which is for direct 

grant assistance to LEAs for drug and violence prevention or for emergency preparedness activities. 

3. If the Department believes that the SDFS state grant program is indeed ineffective and the SDFS National Programs are considered effective, why would the 

Administration not transfer all of the $295 million currently in the SDFS state 

grant budget to National Programs instead of creating a net reduction of $184 million dollar for school safety? 

A: The President’s 2010 budget provides significant resources to school districts 

to support these efforts through national programs. Equally important, in addition 

to providing direct support to LEAs for school safety and drug and violence prevention projects in sufficient amounts to make a real difference for students at the local 

level, most funds requested for SDFSC National Programs would support projects 

that are structured in a manner that permits grantees and independent evaluators 

to measure progress and add to the knowledge base on program effectiveness and 

best practices, which ultimately can serve to benefit all school districts. 

4. We have seen funding drop from $650 million for SDFS at the time of the 

Colombine shootings and to the current $295 million over the past decade. Furthermore, we do not have accurate data on incidents that occur in schools and that the 

only national data we have on school violence comes from the surveys found in the 

indicators report. Without good information we cannot help schools that need it the 

most. That is why I have introduced the SAVE Act. What are the Department’s 

long-term plans for keeping our students safe? 
85 

A: We envision a Federal role that incorporates several components. First, we 

think that we should support activities including research, evaluation, and data collection that are national in scope or otherwise unlikely to be supported by States 

and localities. These kinds of activities form the basis for an improved understanding of the challenges involved in creating safe and healthy learning environments, as well as for developing and refining our knowledge about the most effective 

approaches to meeting these challenges. Our sustained support for two significant 

national data collections about school violence, and a rigorous evaluation of a middle 

school violence prevention intervention, is an example of these kinds of investments. 

We should also play a leadership role in developing or testing approaches and 

strategies designed to reduce youth violence, create school climates that support 

learning, and enhance the capacity of schools to prepare for and respond to the wide 

range of crisis situations that they may face. Support for these kinds of demonstration activities helps expand the quantity and quality of effective solutions for these 

problems, and maintains an appropriate focus on making the best possible investments with the limited resources that are available. 

We also carry out an important responsibility to disseminate widely and effectively information about data and results of research and evaluation activities to be 

sure school officials around the Nation have easy access to the most up-to-date information about how to develop and maintain safe and secure schools that support academic achievement and are prepared to respond to a variety of hazards and challenges. 

Finally, we must also be ready to provide support for direct services to those 

school districts that are experiencing the most severe and chronic problems in providing safe and secure learning environments. For a variety of reasons, many of 

which are outside of the immediate control of school officials, some districts experience unusually high levels of disruption and disorder, as well as violent and criminal activity. In these instances, we hope to focus our limited funding resources on 

sites with high-quality plans to address these problems. 

The new initiative concerning school culture and climate included in the President’s fiscal year (FY) 2010 budget request represents this final prong of our strategy. The initiative is designed to support efforts to address problems related to significant levels of disruption and disorder in schools, as well as to assist schools that 

are experiencing serious violent and criminal behavior. The budget requests $100 

million in FY 2010 for new grants to school districts experiencing the most significant problems. The program will encourage the use of research-based interventions 

as well as the involvement of partners from the community, including representatives from law enforcement, juvenile justice, and public mental health systems that 

also frequently interact with troubled students. 

5. In March 2007, I sent the Department a letter (attached hereto) outlining my 

concerns that the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools has not been collecting and 

does not possess data as required under ESEA Section 4141 which reauthorized the 

Gun Free Schools Act (GFSA). Specifically, States are required to report to the Secretary a description of circumstances surrounding any expulsions including the 

name of the school concerned, the number of students expelled, and the type of firearms involved. We have an obligation to keep America’s schools gun free. The goal 

of this measure was to remove firearms from all public schools in the United States 

by requiring schools districts receiving federal funds to adopt a gun-free school policy and expel for one year students who carry a gun to school. As lawmakers and 

concerned parents, in order to know whether the goals of the law are being met it 

is critical to have accurate and available data collected as required by the law. In 

November 2007, eight months after my letter was sent, I received a response from 

the Department (attached hereto). It said, in part, ‘‘We acknowledge that a series 

of school shootings that have occurred during the past decade have heightened the 

public’s concern about school safety and the presence of firearms and other weapons 

in schools. Based on the changing climate since the Department’s initial implementation of GFSA reporting requirements, our review of the GFSA and your request, 

we will initiate the steps necessary to begin to collect information from States about 

the names of schools where a student was found to have brought a firearm from 

school.’’ Can you please advise the status of these steps? Is the Department collecting this information? If yes, where might I find the information? 

A: We have begun to explore modifications in the data collection instrument and 

existing clearance for Gun-Free Schools Act information, but have encountered an 

additional issue that potentially affects our ability to collect and report information 

about the names of schools where students have been found to have brought a firearm to school. As you may know, the Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act 

(FERPA) regulations recently underwent significant revisions. The Department 

issued final regulations on December 9 that include revisions designed to help edu-
86 

cational agencies and institutions better understand and administer FERPA’s requirements and to make important changes related to school safety, access to education data for research and accountability, and safeguarding education records. 

At this time, we are determining how or if these revisions affect our ability to report data concerning the names of school where a student was found to have 

brought a firearm to school. Previously, the definition of ‘‘personally identifiable information’’ in the FERPA regulations included a reference to ‘‘other information that 

would make the student’s identity easily traceable’’. That phrase was removed because it is ambiguous. Instead, the revised definition of the term ‘‘personally identifiable information’’ in the final regulations includes ‘‘other information that, alone 

or in combination, is linked or linkable to a specific student that would allow a reasonable person in the school community, who does not have personal knowledge of 

the relevant circumstances, to identify the student with reasonable certainty.’’ In 

addition the revised definition prevents a school from disclosing information, even 

in redacted form, that is requested by a party if the school reasonably believes the 

party knows the identity of the student to whom the record relates. We believe that 

these changes will make it easier for affected educational agencies and institutions 

to determine whether information is personally identifiable, and, consequently, 

whether it may be released without consent. 

Until we are able to reach a determination about whether or not release of GunFree Schools Act data concerning the names of schools where students have been 

found to have brought a firearm to school could fall within the scope of the revised 

definition of personally identifiable information, we cannot make final decisions on 

the steps necessary to request data about school names. We continue to collect data 

about the number of expulsions and types of firearms as required by the Gun-Free 

Schools Act, as well as information about building type (elementary or secondary 

schools), the disability status of students expelled, and availability of continuing 

education services for students expelled under the Gun-Free Schools Act, but are 

also considering whether or not any of this data could be considered personally identifiable information. 

6. As you know, two middle school students—Carl Walker-Hoover of Springfield, 

MA and Jaheem Harrera of DeKalb County, GA—committed suicide within the past 

month and a half because of anti-gay bullying and harassment. What steps is the 

Education Department taking to provide states, local districts and schools with the 

guidance and resources they need to prevent this type of bullying and harassment, 

and to intervene when it occurs? 

A: We share your concern about the potentially terrible impact of bullying and 

harassing behavior on students, whether or not the behavior focuses on sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religion, race, ethnicity, language background or 

any of the other issues that bullies use to intimidate their targets. Bullying and harassment prevent young people from focusing on their studies and thereby disrupt 

the learning process; as such, they are an education issue of the highest priority for 

our Administration. We believe that schools must provide safe, disciplined, and nurturing environments for all of their students and establish school climates that are 

conducive to learning and healthy youth development. 

A new initiative concerning school culture and climate included in the President’s 

FY 2010 budget request is designed to support efforts to address problems related 

to disruption and disorder in schools, as well as to assist schools that are experiencing serious violent and criminal behavior. The budget requests $100 million in 

FY 2010 for new grants to encourage the use of research-based interventions as well 

as the involvement of partners from the community, including representatives from 

law enforcement, juvenile justice, and public mental health systems that also frequently interact with troubled students. We expect that applicants will propose 

strategies to reduce bullying and harassing behaviors, as well as to provide needed 

supports for victims, as well as bullies, that can then be used as models for other 

districts. 

We look forward to the opportunity to develop and implement this new initiative, 

but also want to share information with you about other relevant activities. For example, some existing Department of Education programs, such as the Safe Schools/ 

Healthy Students initiative (implemented in conjunction with the Departments of 

Health and Human Services (HHS) and Justice), also provide for bullying prevention efforts in schools and communities. We have also provided support for the development and implementation of an anti-bullying initiative sponsored by the 

Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), part of HHS. The initiative 

includes the development of materials and technical assistance for children and 

adult audiences, and includes some materials that specifically address bullying and 

harassment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth. Information about the 
87 

‘‘Stop Bullying Now’’ campaign has been broadly disseminated and is available online at: http://www.stopbullyingnow.hrsa.gov/kids/. 

The Department’s Office for Civil Rights also plays an important role in combating bullying and sexual harassment through its enforcement of Title IX of the 

Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX). Since Title IX protects a ‘‘person’’ from 

sex discrimination, both male and female students are protected from sexual harassment engaged in by a school’s employees, other students, or third parties. Although 

Title IX does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, it protects gay and lesbian students from sexual harassment as it does all other students. 

As part of the Department’s enforcement of Title IX, we will provide guidance and 

technical assistance to ensure that districts and postsecondary institutions understand their responsibilities to prevent and end sex-based harassment regardless of 

the real or perceived sexual orientation of the victim. 

While many students who are the victims of bullying and harassing behavior are 

able to continue to function in spite of the pain inflicted by bullies, in some cases 

the intensity of the harassment, lack of family or other support, or fragility of a student can result in the kind of tragedies identified in your question. Schools also play 

an important role in preventing adolescent suicides. Our colleagues at the Substance 

Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), part of HHS, are implementing a variety of activities designed to assist schools and communities in understanding and preventing this tragic behavior. For example, they operate a technical assistance center that develops training and technical assistance materials and 

activities that focus on the most up-to-date information about effective suicide prevention efforts. Details about these efforts and the valuable services that they are 

providing to help reduce the incidence of youth suicide are available online at: 

http://www.sprc.org/about—sprc/about—site.asp. 

7. Mr. Secretary, I am concerned that Administration’s budget eliminates funding 

for a program that has produced tremendous results for New York teachers, Ready 

to Teach. Ready to Teach funds VITAL, an initiative spearheaded by my local public 

television station, Thirteen/WNET, that leverages public television’s high-quality 

educational programming to create standards-aligned digital content for classroom 

use. Will you work with me to continue this successful partnership with public television stations and to increase their capacity to serve students and teachers nationwide? 

A: In his FY 2010 budget request, the President has proposed to replace the 

Ready to Teach program with a new activity under the Fund for the Improvement 

in Education program, the Digital Professional Development initiative. This activity 

will provide for some flexibility that does not exist in the current Ready to Teach 

authority, especially the flexibility to support early childhood activities and to permit a wide range of entities to apply for funding. The purpose of the new initiative 

is to develop and distribute innovative digital professional development for teachers, 

including early childhood personnel, in core curriculum areas, that aligns with and 

supports State academic content standards, as appropriate. The digital professional 

development will be available for distribution through the Internet, online portals, 

and other digital media platforms and will use learning modules, gaming, simulations, and other innovative technological applications to enhance the effectiveness 

and relevance of such content for teachers. The Department takes this action in 

order to expand the technological approaches that can be used to support effective 

professional development, to encourage the development of professional development 

for early childhood educators, and to promote sustainability through a wide range 

of partnerships including, but not limited to, public television stations. We look forward to working with you on these efforts. 

8. Would the Administration consider allocating a portion of the ‘‘$2.5 billion for 

a new five-year Access and Completion Incentive Fund to support innovative state 

efforts to help low-income students succeed and complete their college education,’’ 

to expand existing and successful TRIO and Project GRAD programs so that we can 

expand programs that actually work while at the same time seeking out innovative 

programs? 

A: The President’s FY 2010 budget maintains support for TRIO at $905 million. 

The College Access and Completion Fund will stimulate strategic initiatives by 

States and associations of higher education institutions throughout the country, to 

systemically increase college access and completion rates far beyond current outcomes. In addition, there are a number of demonstrated and promising strategies 

developed by non-profits that should be considered in order to increase college access and completion rates. 
88 

Rep. Payne 

1. Mr. Secretary, I am concerned that the Administration’s budget eliminates 

funding for a program that has produced tremendous results for teachers nationwide, Ready to Teach. A current recipient of Ready to Teach funds is PBS 

TeacherLine. PBS TeacherLine has been the source of high-quality, online fully facilitated professional development since 2000, serving more than 55,000 educators 

across the United States in the past four years alone. With a recent focus on coaching and mentoring, PBS TeacherLine created Peer Connection, a field-tested, highperformance suite of collaboration and communication tools created to strengthen 

and streamline instructional coaches’ work with the teachers they’re supporting. 

This appears to be an innovative practice that should be encouraged by this administration. Can I get your commitment that you will take a closer look at this program and evaluate it on its merits and success? 

A: We appreciate your support for this program and certainly our intention is to 

evaluate all programs on their merits. In his FY 2010 budget request, the President 

has proposed to replace the Ready to Teach program with a new activity under the 

Fund for the Improvement in Education program, the Digital Professional Development initiative. This activity will provide for some flexibility that does not exist in 

the current Ready to Teach statute, especially the flexibility to support early childhood activities and to permit a wide range of entities to apply for funding. The purpose of the new initiative is to develop and distribute innovative digital professional 

development for teachers, including early childhood personnel, in core curriculum 

areas, that aligns with and supports State academic content standards, as appropriate. The digital professional development will be available for distribution 

through the Internet, online portals, and other digital media platforms and will use 

learning modules, gaming, simulations, and other innovative technological applications to enhance the effectiveness and relevance of such professional development 

for teachers. The Department takes this action in order to expand the technological 

approaches that can be used to support effective professional development, to encourage the development of professional development for early childhood educators, 

and to promote sustainability through a wide range of partnerships including, but 

not limited to, public television stations. 

2. As you think about what is needed to help students succeed academically—particularly those living in poverty- what are some of the innovations that have been 

successful that you would like to advance nationally? 

A: We believe we must have dramatically higher State standards, and support 

common standards across States. To that end, the Administration has requested 

over $400 million to support the development of rigorous assessments linked to 

those standards. We have also called for State data systems that are able to track 

student achievement and teacher effectiveness so we are able to learn where students are successful and where further interventions are needed. Additionally, we 

have called for States to remove caps on charter schools and implement laws that 

enable high-quality growth in the charter school sector. Finally, we must improve 

teacher effectiveness and the equitable distribution of teachers; turn around lowperforming schools through such means as restructuring, providing incentives to 

high-performing educators to work in those schools, and adding time to the school 

day and year; strengthen early learning preparation for college and careers; and use 

technology to improve teaching and student learning. More information on reform 

ideas that may significantly improve student academic success is available at 

http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/guidance/uses.doc in a document produced by the Department. 

3. How important do you think ‘‘added time’’ or ‘‘expanded learning time’’ is to 

helping close the achievement gap? 

A: The Secretary has said that he fundamentally believes that our school day is 

too short, our school week is too short, and our school year is too short; that it 

doesn’t matter how poor, how tough the family background, or what the socioeconomic challenges, where students have longer days, longer weeks, longer years— 

that’s making a difference. 

4. Do you support flexibility in how federal dollars can be spent to meet the needs 

of struggling students? For example, using funds like those designed for Supplemental Education Services to support more comprehensive approach to add learning 

time for students? 

A: The Department is supportive of innovative approaches to ensuring student 

success, including extended learning time. 

5. How can federal dollars, such as those in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and in the President’s Fiscal Year 2010 budget, be used to support expanded learning time? 
89 

A: Federal education funds, including ARRA funds, can be used by LEAs and 

schools to expand learning time by extending the school day, school year, or both, 

to improve student achievement through increased time for core academic subjects. 

Title I funds for schoolwide and targeted assistance programs may be used as part 

of an overall strategy to improve student learning outcomes to increase time for 

structured teacher collaboration such as job-embedded teacher professional development and planning, and for classroom observation and coaching. Instructional strategies and initiatives for schoolwide Title I programs must be based on scientificallybased research to strengthen the core academic program and increase the quality 

and quantity of learning time. In addition, the FY 2010 budget request included 

$1.13 billion for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program, which is 

specifically focused on before- and after-school programs. 

Rep. Polis 

1. Both you and the president have repeatedly called for federal investment in innovative programs with a proven track record of helping schools meet high standards and close the achievement gap. President Obama has called on states to lift 

caps on charter schools and reform their charter school rules so that excellent charter schools can be replicated. The President’s budget includes a 24% increase for 

Charter School Grants, which is an important first step towards fulfilling his pledge 

to double funding for this program. However, the program’s focus is on new schools 

rather than scaling up existing successful models to serve more students. What role 

will the replication and expansion of high-quality charter schools play in the Administrations’ education reform agenda, and how do you envision such an investment 

taking place both prior to and as a part of No Child Left Behind reauthorization? 

A: Replication and expansion of high-quality charter schools will play a central 

role in the Administration’s education reform agenda. The charter school program 

has provided over $2.2 billion in financial assistance to States since 1995 for the 

planning, program design, and initial implementation of charter schools, and the 

dissemination of information on charter schools. State educational agencies (SEAs) 

award these funds as subgrants to developers of charter schools who have applied 

for a charter. In addition, States may reserve up to 10 percent of their grant for 

dissemination sub-grants to spread lessons learned from high-quality charter 

schools with a demonstrated history of success to other public schools, including 

other public charter schools, about how to create, sustain, replicate and expand 

high-quality, accountable schools. In support of the President’s request to increase 

funding for this program to $268 million, the Department is seeking additional flexibility to reserve funds to make multiple awards to charter management organizations and other entities that can replicate and expand successful charter school models as part of a national dissemination plan. Our Administration supports rigorous 

accountability for all charter schools, and moving forward, will encourage higher 

quality processes for the review and approval of charter schools, as well as ways 

to shut down charter schools that are not serving students well. 

2. Under the Recovery Act, charter schools in some states are facing difficulties 

accessing the new funding. However, the Administration has made it clear that the 

fair and equal treatment of charter schools, which I am assuming is the case both 

with the recovery funds and other federal funding, will be a critical component of 

future ARRA funding. Could you discuss this issue—the role of how charters are 

treated under ARRA—in more detail? Will the Department hold states accountable 

for their treatment of charter schools during the second round of State Fiscal Stabilization Funding and the Race to the Top funds? How about federal funding in 

general in the long term longer? 

A: In applying for Race to the Top funds, a State will earn points for ensuring 

successful conditions for high-performing charter schools and other innovative 

schools, as measured by the extent to which the State has a charter school law that 

does not prohibit or effectively inhibit increasing the number of high-performing 

charter schools in the State; the State has laws, statutes, regulations or guidelines 

regarding how charter school authorizers approve, monitor, hold accountable, reauthorize, and close charter schools; the State’s charter schools receive equitable funding compared to traditional public schools; the State provides charter schools with 

funding for facilities, assistance with facilities acquisition, access to public facilities, 

the ability to share in bonds and mill levies, or other supports, and the extent to 

which the State does not impose any facility-related requirements on charter schools 

that are stricter than those applied to traditional public schools; and the State enables LEAs to operate innovative, autonomous public schools other than charter 

schools. The Final Notice/Invitation for Applications for Race to the Top can be 

found at http://www.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/final-priorities.pdf and an exec-
90 

utive summary can be found at http://www.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf. 

State law determines whether a charter school is an LEA, or a school within an 

LEA. A charter school LEA must receive Stabilization funding on the same basis 

as other LEAs in the State. In addition, Section 5206 of the ESEA requires State 

educational agencies to take necessary measures to ensure that a newly opening or 

a significantly expanding charter school LEA receives Department of Education formula grant funds to which it is entitled within five months after opening or expanding even if the identity of the children in those LEAs needed to determine allocations may not be available at the time the charter school LEA opens or expands. 

3. Mr. Secretary, in April the nation grappled with the horrific suicides of two 11- 

year-old children, Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover in Massachusetts and Jaheem Herrera in Georgia both of whom had been relentlessly bullied and teased with antigay epithets. These deaths were needless and devastating to their families, friends 

and communities. This year, on the National Day of Silence you stated that ‘‘we 

must all acknowledge our collective role and responsibility in preventing student 

deaths and ensuring that our schools remain safe havens of learning.’’ What action 

is the Department of Education taking to combat bullying and promote tolerance in 

our nation’s schools? 

A: We share your concern about the potentially terrible impact of bullying and 

harassing behavior on students, whether or not the behavior focuses on sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religion, race, ethnicity, language background, or 

any of the other issues that bullies use to intimidate their targets. Bullying and harassment prevent young people from focusing on their studies and thereby disrupt 

the learning process: as such, they are an education issue of the highest priority for 

our Administration. We believe that schools must provide safe, disciplined, and nurturing environments for all of their students and establish school climates that are 

conducive to learning and healthy youth development. 

A new initiative concerning school culture and climate included in the President’s 

FY 2010 budget request is designed to support efforts to address problems related 

to disruption and disorder in schools, as well as to assist schools that are experiencing serious violent and criminal behavior. The budget requests $100 million in 

FY 2010 for new grants to encourage the use of research-based interventions as well 

as the involvement of partners from the community, including representatives from 

law enforcement, juvenile justice, and public mental health systems that also frequently interact with troubled students. We expect that applicants will propose 

strategies to reduce bullying and harassing behaviors, as well as to provide needed 

supports for victims, as well as bullies, that can then be used as models for other 

districts. 

We look forward to the opportunity to develop and implement this new initiative, 

but also want to share information with you about other relevant activities. For example, some existing Department of Education programs, such as the Safe Schools/ 

Healthy Students initiative (implemented in conjunction with the Departments of 

Health and Human Services (HHS) and Justice), also provide for bullying prevention efforts in schools and communities. We have also provided support for the development and implementation of an anti-bullying initiative sponsored by the 

Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), part of HHS. The initiative 

includes the development of materials and technical assistance for children and 

adult audiences, and includes some materials that specifically address bullying and 

harassment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth. Information about the 

‘‘Stop Bullying Now’’ campaign has been broadly disseminated and is available online at: http://www.stopbullyingnow.hrsa.gov/kids/. 

The Department’s Office for Civil Rights also plays an important role in combating bullying and sexual harassment through its enforcement of Title IX of the 

Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX). Since Title IX protects a ‘‘person’’ from 

sex discrimination, both male and female students are protected from sexual harassment engaged in by a school’s employees, other students, or third parties. Although 

Title IX does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, it protects gay and lesbian students from sexual harassment as it does all other students. 

As part of the Department’s enforcement of Title IX, we will provide guidance and 

technical assistance to ensure that districts and postsecondary institutions understand their responsibilities to prevent and end sex-based harassment regardless of 

the real or perceived sexual orientation of the victim. 

While many students who are the victims of bullying and harassing behavior are 

able to continue to function in spite of the pain inflicted by bullies, in some cases 

the intensity of the harassment, lack of family or other support, or fragility of a student can result in the kind of tragedies identified in your question. Schools also play 

an important role in preventing adolescent suicides. Our colleagues at the Substance 
91 

Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), part of HHS, are implementing a variety of activities designed to assist schools and communities in understanding and preventing this tragic behavior. For example SAMHSA also operates a technical assistance center that develops training and technical assistance 

materials and activities that focus on the most up-to-date information about effective suicide prevention efforts. Details about these efforts and the valuable services 

that are provided to help reduce the incidence of youth suicide are available online 

at: http://www.sprc.org/about—sprc/about—site.asp. 

4. As the founder and superintendent of a charter school serving immigrant 

youth, I have seen firsthand how we waste talent and potential in this country by 

denying high school graduates the opportunity to pursue a college education because 

of their immigration status. These kids have been raised and educated in this country and are as American as anyone else, but for too long they have had their dreams 

shattered by an education system that ignores their good grades and hard work. 

Educational opportunity is a right, not a privilege, and access to higher education 

is the key to both individual success and our nation’s economic growth and prosperity. Some try to describe the American DREAM Act as immigration policy, but 

I strongly believe that it’s fundamentally an issue of educational opportunity. President Obama was a co-sponsor of this legislation both as a State and an U.S. Senator 

and during a visit to a school in my district a year ago he reiterated his support. 

Can you please share with us your views on this critical issue? 

A: The Administration supports the DREAM Act. 

5. According to the Census Bureau estimates, nearly 1 in 5 adults in the U.S. 

speaks a language other than English at home, and more than 17 million speak 

English less than ‘‘very well.’’ While demand for English language instruction has 

dramatically increased, Federal funding for English Speakers of Other Languages 

(ESOL) programs has actually declined. A recent survey among 176 ESOL providers 

showed that 57.4 percent maintained waiting lists, ranging from a few weeks to 

more than 3 years. Given the increased demand for adult ESOL programs, and the 

current economic crisis, an investment in adult education is needed now more than 

ever. What efforts will the Administration take to help address these issues, and 

help build and maintain a robust adult education, language, and literacy system in 

the U.S.? 

A: The President and the Department are committed to strengthening the adult 

education, language and literacy system. The Department recognizes that the need 

for programs and services in adult education and ESOL significantly exceeds the 

level of our resources and our ability to fully address the demand. According to the 

2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL), over 30 million adults have 

‘‘below basic literacy’’ in English. Twelve million (44 percent) are non-native English 

speakers. In program year 2007-08, the Adult Education State Grant program 

served approximately 2.3 million adults, 46 percent of whom were English language 

learners. 

The President’s budget requests $628 million for the Adult Education State grants 

program for FY 2010, $74.1 million more than the FY 2009 level. The FY 2010 increase includes an increase in the set-aside for English Literacy/Civics Education 

State Grants to $75 million, a $7.1 million increase over the FY 2009 level. 

An essential component in developing this skilled workforce and addressing the 

needs of immigrant workers is providing job training in the English language. The 

Department continues to fund an Adult English Language Education Technical Assistance Network to support adult English language (EL) teachers by providing: (1) 

a national repository of research and research-based resources for adult EL educators across the Nation, and (2) targeted technical assistance to States in need of 

improving their EL professional development systems. 

Finally, to specifically address the transition needs of English language learners, 

the Department is working with its State partners to better understand how 

English language learners transition between language training classes and adult 

basic skills instruction. The Department is identifying and evaluating promising 

new practices and initiatives to determine if they are effective in improving the 

transition rate of English language learners into Adult Basic Education and Adult 

Secondary Education programs. 

Rep. Davis 

1. Please share some specifics on what performance-based rewards will look 

through the Teacher Incentive Fund. 

A: Our FY 2010 budget request for the Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) program 

builds on what we have learned from our first two cohorts of grantees. In the FY 

2010 grant competition, the Department would place a priority on the support of 

comprehensive, aligned approaches that support improved teacher and principal ef-
92 

fectiveness, help ensure an equitable distribution of effective educators, actively involve teachers and principals in the design of human capital and compensation systems, and use data from emerging State and local longitudinal data systems to 

track outcomes and associate those outcomes with educator performance. Grants 

would provide support for rewarding teachers for improving student academic 

achievement, encouraging highly qualified, effective teachers to enter classrooms 

with high concentrations of poor children, and developing and implementing performance-based teacher compensation systems. 

We expect that we will see grantees provide differentiated compensation for teachers and principals who can demonstrate that the students in their classes and 

schools performed at a higher level than comparable students. Grantees would make 

awards to individual teachers whose students demonstrate achievement gains or, alternatively, a grantee may choose to provide additional compensation to all teachers 

in a particular grade or subject area where students demonstrate significant gains 

in performance. Grantees also are likely to provide additional compensation to effective teachers who commit to serving in hard-to-staff schools. Grantees might also 

choose to provide additional compensation to educators who agree to mentor new 

teachers or take on other leadership responsibilities. 

The Administration has also requested appropriations language that would also 

allow FY 2010 grantees to use TIF funds to reward all staff in a school, as opposed 

to only teachers and principals. 

2. What are some of the obstacles to implementing performance-based rewards 

and how does the Department plan to overcome these obstacles? 

A: We believe there is significant support for performance pay systems that are 

developed and implemented with the participation of teachers and principals. Accordingly, the Administration has requested a significant increase in funding for the 

Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF). The Department would place a priority on the support of comprehensive, aligned approaches that support improved teacher and principal effectiveness and help ensure an equitable distribution of effective educators, 

that actively involve teachers (including special education teachers) and principals 

in the design of human capital and compensation systems, and that use data from 

emerging State and local longitudinal data systems to track outcomes and associate 

those outcomes with educator performance. The Administration is also requesting 

language that would permit support for performance-based compensation to all staff 

in a school. 

3. How will the performance pay rewards interact with No Child Left Behind and 

its requirements, such as Adequate Yearly Progress and Highly Qualified Teachers? 

A: We believe that performance pay, in the context of the Teacher Incentive Fund 

(TIF), is compatible with the current requirements of the ESEA, as evidenced by 

the use of TIF grants in recent years. The Administration has requested a significant increase in funding for this program to support State and school district efforts 

to develop and implement comprehensive strategies for strengthening the educator 

workforce and driving improvements in teacher and principal effectiveness. 

4. What opportunities do you see to build a new structure for successful principals 

and strong school leadership under the Obama Administration? 

A: School districts have the opportunity to use funds for innovations under the 

Improving Teacher Quality State Grants program in order to increase the number 

of successful principals through professional development, recruitment, and retention activities. 

For FY 2010, the Administration has requested $517.3 million, $420 million more 

than the 2009 regular appropriation level, for the Teacher Incentive Fund program. 

Among its allowable activities, Teacher Incentive Fund grants support efforts to develop and implement improved human capital and compensation systems in order 

to attract and retain the best principals. 

The Administration has also requested a $10 million increase for the School Leadership program to support school district efforts to encourage successful school leaders to work in lower-performing schools. Also, through the Teacher Quality Partnership Grants program, the Department awards grants that can be used for, among 

other purposes, supporting school leadership programs to train superintendents, 

principals, and other school leaders in high-need or rural school districts. 

5. What will the new National Teacher Recruitment program look like and how 

will it bring new, quality teachers to the profession? 

A: The Administration has requested $30 million for a National Teacher Recruitment Campaign. 

The program would combine: (1) a public service campaign to call people to service 

as teachers; (2) web-based services to help prospective teachers understand the requirements for becoming a teacher and the preparation options available to them; 

and (3) a National Teacher Recruitment Clearinghouse, where qualified teachers 
93 

can find employment opportunities and preparation institutions and employers can 

seek a richer pool of candidates. 

The program would target a wide range of potential teachers: college students 

who could enter undergraduate teacher preparation programs; recent college graduates who could enter post-BA teacher preparation programs and alternative routes 

to teacher certification; and mid-career professionals and paraprofessionals who are 

interested in a new career direction. 

The program will promote multiple pathways into the profession, such as competitive university-based programs and high-performing alternative certification programs. 

6. How important is the issue of tuition refunds and loan forgiveness for service 

members who are activated to the Department? 

A: Service members and veterans are very important to the Department. The Department administers numerous programs and benefits that apply to service members and veterans, as well as their families, while they are in college, deployed or 

have been graduated, and is committed to working with Congress on these issues. 

(See Question 7 for more specifics.) 

7. How is the Department addressing the unique needs of service members and 

military veterans attending college? What tools do you need from Congress to better 

meet these needs? 

A: The Department administers numerous programs and benefits that apply to 

service members and veterans, as well as their families, while they are in college, 

and for loans after they attend college or are deployed. The Department is implementing a number of new changes brought about by the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) amendments to the Higher Education Act (HEA). The Department on December 2008 issued a ‘‘Dear Colleague’’ letter on the new HEOA 

changes. The Department has also completed the negotiated rulemaking process on 

new regulations required by the HEOA. 

The Department currently must have institutions treat veterans’ education benefits as estimated financial assistance that count towards meeting the need of a student. However, the institution must exclude Chapter 30 benefits for purposes of eligibility for a subsidized Stafford Loan. The Department has made postsecondary institutions aware that starting with the 2010-2011 award year under the HEA, all 

Federal veterans education benefits must be excluded for purposes of eligibility for 

all of the Federal Student Aid programs. (P.L. 111-39, recently passed by Congress 

moved this date up to July 1, 2009). 

The Department has made public postsecondary institutions aware that it may 

not charge a member of the Armed Forces who is on active duty for a period of more 

than 30 days and whose domicile or permanent duty station is in a State that receives assistance under the HEA, nor his or her spouse and dependent children, a 

tuition rate higher than its in-State tuition rate. This new HEA provision is effective for the 2009-2010 award year. 

The Department is working with the Department of Defense to complete a computer matching agreement to ensure that starting with the 2009-2010 award year, 

the maximum Federal Pell Grant eligibility (EFC of zero) will be given to a student 

whose parent or guardian was a member of the armed forces and died as a result 

of military service in Iraq or Afghanistan after September 11, 2001. 

The Department is appyling the requirement of the Service members Civil Relief 

Act to the FFEL and Direct Loan programs that limits the interest rate on a borrower’s loan to six percent during the borrower’s active duty military service. This 

change applies to borrowers in military service as of August 14, 2008. 

The Department has taken steps to apply to Direct Loans disbursed on or after 

October 1, 2008, a new HEA provision that interest will not accrue on the loan of 

an eligible military borrower for a period of not more than 60 months. The eligible 

military borrower is one who is serving on active duty or performing qualifying National Guard duty during a war or other military operation or national emergency, 

and is in an area of hostilities in which service qualifies for special pay. The benefit 

applies to any eligible military borrower whose service includes August 14, 2008, or 

begins after that date. 

The Department has also taken steps to apply the new readmission requirements 

for service members that were effective August 14, 2008. An institution may not 

deny readmission to a service member of the Armed Forces for reasons relating to 

that service. In addition, a student who is readmitted to an institution under this 

requirement must be readmitted with the same academic status as the student had 

when he or she last attended the institution. 

In addition to the newer items that were mentioned above and brought about by 

the HEOA, the Department continues to apply the military service deferment for 

FFEL Loans, Direct Loans, and Perkins Loans during the period that the borrower 
94 

is serving on active duty or performing eligible National Guard duty during a war, 

or other military operation, or national emergency. Also, effective October 1, 2007, 

members of the National Guard or Armed Forces Reserve, and members of the 

Armed Forces who are in a retired status, who are called to active duty service, are 

eligible for a 13-month deferment on repayment of their loans following the completion of their active duty military service. 

LIAISON AND OUTREACH

The Department established a new position (Special Advisor for Military Affairs) 

in the Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development to collaboratively promote and enhance policies in the Department that will improve the education and 

overall well-being of military members and their families, including those attending 

college. This person’s functions include serving as the liaison between the Department of Education and the Department of Defense for implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding between the two agencies and other cross-agency efforts. 

The Office of Communications and Outreach newsletter ‘‘Touching Base’’ provides 

online information about educational issues and resources pertaining to the education of military students. The publication highlights the activities of the Department of Education that have direct impact on military communities with the audience including military families, military organizations, and military support centers. It is available via e-mail and is posted on the Department’s website at http:// 

www.ed.gov/news/newsletters/touchingbase/index.html. 

Federal Student Aid (FSA) staff attended Job Fairs at military locations in Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia, and provided financial aid materials in support 

of events in Louisiana and Texas. FSA also regularly provides articles to the Department of Veterans Affairs for the ‘‘Operations Iraqi Freedom/Enduring Freedom 

Review’’ newsletter. 

FSA’s publications, workshops, and website are very useful tools and resources 

that help military families take advantage of grants, scholarships, and other services. Military families can easily find information about financial assistance for college by accessing it from TurboTap.org which includes a link to 

www.federalstudentaid.ed.gov. 

INSTITUTIONAL TRAINING

In the Federal Student Aid Handbook on its website for financial aid officers at 

www.ifap.ed.gov, FSA provides ‘‘Dear Colleague’’ letters and electronic announcements information on the proper handling of military members’ and veterans’ 

issues, including their benefits when they apply for financial assistance for college. 

FSA has done numerous joint workshops with the Department of Veterans Affairs 

for financial aid officers to keep them up to date on changes that apply to veterans 

and their families. 

8. Given that programs such as ED’s Mentoring Programs are making progress 

toward closing the gap of 15 million children without a mentor and connecting 

young people with a solid role model, what can we do to improve the program—perhaps through a more rigorous RFP process or other means—rather than end it as 

recommended by the President’s Budget? 

A: We agree that connecting young people in an effective way with responsible 

adults is an important goal, particularly for youth who lack those connections within 

their families or communities. While the research concerning effective mentoring 

programs and strategies is more limited than we would like, we believe that positive 

mentoring relationships are most likely to flourish when there is a good match between mentors and assigned students, mentors are committed to the relationship 

and effectively trained, the relationship is sustained over a significant period of 

time, and mentoring activities help engender meaningful conversations and interactions for the mentors and mentees. 

We are disappointed that the results of the recently released evaluation of the Department’s Mentoring Program grantees did not reflect statistically significant improvements in academic achievement or engagement, delinquent or high-risk behavior, or interpersonal relationships. For example, program grantees frequently experienced a delay in matching mentors and students. As a result, the average length 

of a mentoring match was less than six months, with mentors reporting meeting 

with mentees an average of 4.4 times a month for a little more than one hour per 

meeting. Given the relatively brief average amount of time spent in the mentoring 

relationships, it is not surprising that significant behavioral changes were not 

found. 

Many other Federal programs in more than a dozen agencies support mentoring 

activities. For example, the President’s budget request includes funding for pro-
95 

grams in the Department of Justice and the Corporation for national and Community Service that support mentoring for disadvantaged youth. 

If Congress elects to continue funding for the program at the Department of Education, the Department would be glad to provide any needed Technical Assistance. 

9. What type of research has been done to measure some of the other potentially 

positive effects of ED’s Mentoring Programs, such as the happiness and confidence 

that can come from a healthy relationship with a responsible adult? 

A: The Institute of Education Sciences conducted a large-scale, experimental evaluation of ED’s student mentoring program. The evaluation did not examine the program’s impacts specifically on student confidence or happiness. However, it did examine its impacts on several other non-school-related outcomes (e.g., pro-social behaviors; delinquency). The study found no positive effects after one school year on 

any of these outcomes (Bernstein, et al., 2009). 

In addition, there are two other recent large-scale, experimental evaluations on 

school-based mentoring programs. The first was a study of the Big Brothers/Big Sisters program, which found no impacts on any of the non-school-related outcomes 

(e.g., self-esteem; assertiveness) that were measured at two points, after one school 

year and after fifteen months (Herrera, et al., 2007). The second study was of a generic school-based mentoring program, which found statistically significant impacts 

on four out of 19 non-school-related outcomes after one school year. 

Rep. Scott 

1. Given the disparity between college retention and graduation rates between 

low-income and high-income students, how does the Administration plan to incorporate into its retention strategy, longstanding programs like TRIO, which successfully equip students with the academic, social, and cultural skills needed to thrive 

in institutions of higher education? 

A: The President’s FY 2010 budget maintains support for TRIO at $905 Million. 

However TRIO programs do not provide a complete solution. The College Access and 

Completion Fund is more comprehensive. Through this program, we hope to stimulate strategic initiatives by States and associations of higher education institutions 

throughout the country, to systemically increase college access and completion rates 

far beyond current outcomes. In addition, there are a number of demonstrated and 

promising strategies developed by non profits that should be considered in order to 

increase college access and completion rates. 

2. The budget requests $20 million in loan subsidies to guarantee up to $178 million in loans under the Historically Black Colleges and Universities Capital Financing Program. To what extent will this meet the demand for such loans? Are there 

institutions in the pipeline with projects waiting to be financed? How many institutions do you anticipate will obtain loans in 2010? 

A: There are currently institutions with applications in the pipeline, and we expect to guarantee loans for 9 schools in fiscal year 2010. 

3. There seems to be varying views on the definition of a ‘‘quality’’ teacher and 

whether this translates to being an ‘‘effective’’ teacher. What are some of your and 

the Department’s ideas on addressing this concern and ensuring that classrooms are 

not filled with paper teachers (teachers that are qualified on paper because of an 

advanced degree or etc.) who are not effective and can’t engage our youth in ways 

that are both beneficial and conducive to their learning? 

A: Teacher effectiveness is an Administration priority. For example, the FY 2010 

budget includes an increase in funding for the Teacher Incentive Fund which will 

encourage changes in teacher and principal compensation systems as well as reward 

those who raise student achievement, close gaps, and work in the most challenging 

schools. In the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, Race to the Top, and School Improvement Grants, the Administration is also focusing on teacher effectiveness. For 

example, the requirements for Race to the Top award points to states with teacher 

evaluation systems that make growth in student achievement a significant factor. 

We are also looking closely at this issue in the context of ESEA reauthorization. 

4. Currently, Title I regulations do not provide specific graduation rate goals or 

growth targets. I have introduced legislation, the Every Student Counts Act, to address the dropout crisis that hasn’t been fixed under the No Child Left Behind 

model. The Every Student Counts Act establishes an annual graduation rate goal 

of 90 percent and a growth target of 3 percent improvement annually and supports 

‘‘growth models’’ of accountability by setting annual benchmarks based on a school’s 

own starting point. Do you support this bill? 

A: The Administration is committed to turning around low-performing schools, 

with a special emphasis on comprehensive, research-based interventions in chronically low-performing schools, including the roughly 2,000 high school ‘‘dropout factories’’ that contribute disproportionately to the Nation’s dropout crisis. 
96 

Specifically, the Administration’s proposed budget included: 

• $50 million for a High School Graduation Initiative to promote innovative strategies for increasing high school graduation rates, particularly in the ‘‘dropout factories’’ and their feeder schools. 

• $1.5 billion for Title I School Improvement Grants, $1 billion over the 2009 

funding level. These funds will help build State and local capacity to identify and 

implement effective interventions to turn around low-performing schools. The Administration also requested the enactment of appropriations language requiring 

States to ensure that 40 percent of School Improvement Grant allocations are spent 

on improvement activities in middle and high schools, which would be another avenue to use in taking on the dropout crisis. 

• An additional $100 million for the Investing in Innovation Fund to help identify, evaluate, and scale up proven strategies for improving student achievement 

and closing achievement gaps in low-performing schools, including secondary 

schools. 

These proposed investments represent the beginning of the Administration’s efforts to improve graduation rates. 

The Administration looks forward to reviewing legislative proposals and working 

with Congress to find ways to strengthen accountability for graduation rates and 

incorporating growth models into Adequate Yearly Progress. 

Rep. Titus 

1. In Nevada, we have a serious problem with high school completion. In 2006, 

the Department of Education reported a graduation rate for Nevada of 56%, and 

others have put the city of Las Vegas at an even lower rate of 44%-both far below 

the national average of about 75%. In my congressional District there were 4 dropout factories and 5 with graduation rates lower than 70%. Nevada has been particularly hard-hit by the economic downturn and is facing unemployment rates that are 

the highest they have been in 25 years, so the low graduation rates are even more 

disturbing since we know that students without a high school diploma will find it 

difficult to find jobs and wil earn less when they do. I know you are concerned about 

this issue. I was heartened by your comments this morning, encouraged by the increases in your and the President’s budget, and intrigued by the recent accounts of 

your conversation with students themselves about why they drop out. You said in 

a recent interview, ‘‘I think we know many of the answers.’’ Your 2010 budget request includes a $1 billion increase for Title I School Improvement Grants. The 

budget summary states, ‘‘This request reflects the Administration’s determination to 

take immediate action to begin addressing the factors that contribute to the high 

school dropout crisis in American education.’’ You started to give us some details 

earlier and were cut off, so I’d ask you to please continue and elaborate on the details of how the School Improvement Grants will help improve our nation’s and my 

state’s graduation rates? 

A: The $1 billion increase requested for Title I School Improvement Grants (SIG) 

reflects the strong priority that the Administration is placing on identifying and implementing effective strategies for turning around low-performing schools and making sure that States and LEAs have the resources needed to meet the ambitious proficiency goals set by the ESEA. In addition, the request would require States to ensure that least 40 percent of their SIG allocations are spent on school improvement 

activities in their middle and high schools, unless the State can serve all eligible 

middle and high schools with a lesser amount. This targeting request reflects the 

Administration’s determination to take immediate action to begin addressing the 

factors that contribute to the high school dropout crisis in American education. 

Section 1003(g) of the ESEA authorizes formula grants to States to fund local 

school improvement activities required by section 1116(b) of the ESEA for Title I 

schools that do not make adequate yearly progress for at least 2 consecutive years. 

Authorized activities include the development and implementation of school improvement plans, professional development for teachers and staff, corrective actions 

such as instituting a new curriculum, alternative governance under a restructuring 

plan, and the provision of public school choice and supplemental educational services options. 

Rep. Woolsey 

1. As you look at the Race to the Top funds and other programs that incentivize 

innovation, how is the Administration planning to work with states and school districts to make sure more girls and minorities are becoming interested in and doing 

well in math and science classes? 

A: The Department is taking an active role in this area, as well as ensuring that 

States, school districts, non-profits, and others can help more girls and minorities 
97 

become interested and do well in math and science in ways they determine will lead 

to greatest outcomes for their students. For example, through rigorous enforcement 

of Title IX, we will work to identify and remedy disparities in access to STEM education. Applicants for Race to the Top will receive a competitive preference for including in their application a description of a high-quality plan to emphasize STEM 

education, including by addressing the STEM education needs of underrepresented 

groups, such as women and girls. The Department is also working closely with the 

White House and developing interagency partnerships through the Council on 

Women and Girls. 

2. How do you envision the improvement of child care quality fitting into the proposed Early Learning Challenge Fund? 

A: The Administration’s proposed Early Learning Challenge Fund would help 

States develop a pathway to a high standard of program quality across early learning programs, including child care programs. Child care programs are a crucial component of our early learning systems, and any effort to improve and strengthen 

these systems will include the child care system. 

3. How can we work together to ensure that all forms of early childhood care and 

education are receiving access to the Early Learning Challenge funds and the assistance to improve quality for our nation’s children? 

A: Our ultimate goal is the seamless delivery of services to our young children 

and their families. With this goal in mind, the Department of Education and the 

Department of Health and Human Services have begun to work closely together to 

improve program coordination and to ensure that all early learning programs would 

benefit from State-wide systematic quality improvements that the Early Learning 

Challenge Fund would support. These two agencies’ collaborative work sets not only 

the tone, but the precedent that agencies, offices, States, programs, communities, 

and community-based organizations must work together to improve the quality of 

our early learning programs. States will be encouraged to build and strengthen their 

infrastructure in a comprehensive, integrated manner. States will also be encouraged to link early learning programs to health, disabilities and family support. 

4. Historically, the Department of Health and Human Services has had much of 

the jurisdiction over early childhood programs, particularly child care. How do you 

plan to work with the Department of Health and Human Services to improve the 

coordination and delivery of services to children under the age of five? Specifically, 

In light of the Early Learning Challenge Grants proposal, how do you plan to coordinate the development and implementation of this proposal with HHS? 

A: The Administration is committed to the successful joint administration of the 

Early Learning Challenge Fund, and my Department and the Department of Health 

and Human Services already are working to develop a process to fulfill that commitment. 

[Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ