Education Secretary Duncan Speaks on the Education Agenda

Yesterday U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan testified before the House Education and Labor Committee on President Obama’s fiscal year 2010 Education budget request. While little new information arose during the secretary’s prepared testimony, a few interesting tidbits came up during the committee members’ questions.

Throughout his testimony, Secretary Duncan reiterated the role that he thinks the Department of Education (ED) should play in improving public education. Specifically, he said that ED should be there to encourage states to “do the right thing” by students, not force them into compliance with certain requirements. Similarly, he stressed the importance of innovation at the state and local levels, rather than at the federal level. He believes that the best ideas come from schools and practitioners, not the federal government. Instead, the federal government should help incent states to allow for innovation and new ideas at the local level.

Along those lines, Representative McKeon (R-CA), the ranking Republican on the committee, asked the secretary a pointed question about what Congress and the administration can do to encourage states to lift arbitrary limits on the number of charter schools. Both President Obama and Secretary Duncan have been strong supporters of charter schools since taking office. In response, Duncan revealed that the distribution of Race to the Top funds – an incentive grant program created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) – will include preference to states that do not have or agree to lift any existing charter school caps.

This move demonstrates the administration’s commitment to growing charter schools across the country. At the same time, it shows how the administration intends to use both carrots and sticks to encourage states to make the most reform-conducive environment possible.

Representative Kildee (D-MI) raised an important question about the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind (the most recent version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act), which expired in 2007. He was particularly concerned about the lack of differentiated and targeted interventions for schools that fail to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in a given year “by a mile” or “by an inch.”

While some schools miss AYP based on multiple factors indicating a pervasive problem with the school itself, others miss AYP based on only one or two factors indicating the need for more focused changes. As NCLB currently stands, both types of schools must undergo the same kinds of interventions. Secretary Duncan recognized that NCLB could be considered a “blunt instrument” and committed to providing more thoughtful, tailored remedies for the next version of the law.

Perhaps the tensest moment of the hearing arose when Representative Kline (R-MN) asked the secretary why the administration chose not to “fully fund” the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in the recent fiscal year 2010 budget request. Although IDEA legislation authorizes the program at up to 40 percent of the additional cost of education students with disabilities (estimated to be around $26 billion for 2009), typical IDEA appropriations fall between $12 and $13 billion – or 17 percent of the additional cost. Kline believes that the administration should finally meet this obligation to the states and provide the maximum amount allowable for IDEA. Similar complaints about the lack of “full funding” for IDEA have been filed from both sides of the aisle in past administrations.

Duncan, at first seeming shocked by the question, stated that the administration made a choice to fund IDEA at approximately $13 billion, rather than the “fully funded” amount in 2010 due to the “unprecedented” additional funding IDEA received through the ARRA for 2009 and 2010. Although the additional $11.3 billion in IDEA stimulus funding does make the federal investment closer to 40% of the additional cost, it still falls short.

Ultimately, Representative Tierney (D-MA) clarified that the 40 percent number is an authorized funding limit, not a commitment to actual appropriations funding. Authorized spending limits are found in authorizing legislation while actual funding is provided through the annual appropriations process. Congress rarely funds programs at the total authorized funding level.

In all, while Secretary Duncan said few new things at the hearing, it was valuable to see him interacting with legislators and committing to address their concerns. Hopefully, this will be the start of a productive relationship between the committee members and ED.