[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                    THE STATE OF AMERICAN EDUCATION

=======================================================================


                                HEARING

                               Before The

                      COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND
                               WORKFORCE
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

            HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 5, 2025

                               __________

                            Serial No. 119-1
                               __________

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Workforce




               [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]




        Available via: edworkforce.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov

        
        
        
        


                                ______
                                
                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

61-137 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2025        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
                  COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE

                    TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Chairman

JOE WILSON, South Carolina           ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, 
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina          Virginia,
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania            Ranking Member
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York          JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
JAMES COMER, Kentucky                SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
BURGESS OWENS, Utah                  MARK TAKANO, California
LISA C. McCLAIN, Michigan            ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
MARY E. MILLER, Illinois             MARK DeSAULNIER, California
JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana              DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
KEVIN KILEY, California              LUCY McBATH, Georgia
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana                JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio               ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota
ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri       HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan
RYAN MACKENZIE, Pennsylvania         GREG CASAR, Texas
MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington      SUMMER L. LEE, Pennsylvania
MARK HARRIS, North Carolina          JOHN W. MANNION, New York
MARK B. MESSMER, Indiana
VACANCY

                     R.J. Laukitis, Staff Director
              Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff Director
              
                                 ------
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on February 5, 2025.................................     1

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

    Walberg, Hon. Tim, Chairman, Committee on Education and 
      Workforce..................................................     1
        Prepared statement of....................................     4
    Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'', Ranking Member, Committee on 
      Education and Workforce....................................     6
        Prepared statement of....................................     8

                               WITNESSES

    Neily, Nicole, President, Parents Defending Education........    10
        Prepared statement of....................................    12
    Cooper, Dr. Preston, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise 
      Institute..................................................    14
        Prepared statement of....................................    16
    Nelson, Janai, President and Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal 
      Defense Fund...............................................    29
        Prepared statement of....................................    31
    Taylor, Johnny C., Jr., President and CEO, Society for Human 
      Resource Management........................................    52
        Prepared statement of....................................    54

                         ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS

    Courtney, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Connecticut:
        Article dated January 25, 2025, from Forbes..............    68
    McBath, Hon. Lucy, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Georgia:
        Ways and Means Committee memo............................    89
    Kiley, Hon. Kevin, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California:
        United States: Change in Spending and Scores Since 2013..   169
    Onder, Hon. Robert F., Jr., a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of Missouri:
        Growth in Administrative Staff, Principals, Teachers, and 
          Students in Public Schools (% Change Since 2000).......   170
        K-12 Spending Per Pupil vs. Median NAEP Score............   171

                        QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Responses to questions submitted for the record by:
        Mrs. Janai Nelson........................................   172
        Mr. Johnny C. Taylor, Jr.................................   186

 
                    THE STATE OF AMERICAN EDUCATION

                              ----------                              

                      Wednesday, February 5, 2025

                  House of Representatives,
              Committee on Education and Workforce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:16 a.m., in 
Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tim Walberg, 
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
    Present: Representatives Walberg, Wilson, Foxx, Thompson, 
Grothman, Stefanik, Allen, Owens, Miller, Kiley, Rulli, Onder, 
Mackenzie, Baumgartner, Harris, Messmer, Scott, Courtney, 
Bonamici, Takano, Adams, Norcross, McBath, Hayes, Casar, Lee, 
and Mannion.
    Staff present: Mindy Barry, General Counsel; Solomon Chen, 
Professional Staff Member; Sheila Havenner, Director of 
Information Technology; Amy Raaf Jones, Director of Education 
and Human Services Policy; Libby Kearns, Press Assistant; 
Isaiah Knox, Legislative Assistant; Campbell Ladd, Staff 
Assistant; R.J. Laukitis, Staff Director; Georgie Littlefair, 
Clerk; R.J. Martin, Professional Staff Member; Audra McGeorge, 
Communications Director; Eli Mitchell, Legislative Assistant; 
Ethan Pann, Deputy Press Secretary and Digital Director; Ian 
Prince, Professional Staff Member; Kane Riddell, Staff 
Assistant; Sara Robertson, Press Secretary; Chance Russell, 
Economist and Policy Advisor; Brad Thomas, Deputy Director of 
Education and Human Services Policy; Ann Vogel, Director of 
Operations; Ali Watson, Director of Member Services; Amaris 
Benavidez, Minority Professional Staff; Ilana Brunner, Minority 
General Counsel; David Dailey, Minority Chief of Staff; Bryan 
Gonzalez, Minority Grad Intern; Rashage Green, Minority 
Director of Education Policy & Counsel; Brandom Hernandez, 
Minority CHCI Fellow; Christian Haines, Minority General 
Counsel; Jo Howard, Minority Grad Intern; Emanual Kimble, 
Minority Professional Staff; Samantha Wilkerson, Professional 
Staff Member; Stephanie Lalle, Minority Communications 
Director; Hannah Seligman, Minority Legal Intern; Raiyana 
Malone, Minority Press Secretary; Kevin McDermott, Minority 
Director of Labor Policy; Marie McGrew, Minority Press 
Assistant; Ben Noenickx, Minority Intern; Kathleen Pan, 
Minority APAICS Fellow; Eleazar Padilla, Minority Staff 
Assistant; Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff Director; 
Elizabeth Tomoloju, Minority Intern; Banyon Vassar, Minority 
Director of IT.
    Chairman Walberg. Well, good morning. The Committee on 
Education and the Workforce will--who typed that up for me? 
Take that ``the'' out. Education and Workforce will come to 
order. I note that a quorum is present, and without objection 
the Chair is authorized to call a recess at any time, and may 
with personal preference, or personal preference, I would put 
something in at this point as well.
    There is no more important place for any of us to be this 
morning related to our legislative work than in this Committee. 
Education is key to everything that goes on in this country, 
especially now and forever more. I am glad that we are all part 
of this A Committee.
    Good morning. It is a pleasure to welcome you to the first 
hearing of the House Committee on Education and Workforce in 
the 119th Congress. This morning, we are here to discuss the 
State of American education. Unfortunately, we are here to 
discuss problems that have resulted and continue to go on in 
education as well.
    Many students are failing to graduate from high school, or 
college, with the skills needed to be successful. In too many 
places education in core subjects like math and reading is 
being replaced by indoctrination. That must change. I am 
pleased to see that the Trump administration is taking 
excellent steps to restore common sense, personal 
responsibility, and parental choice through the education 
system.
    This is just beginning, and it is disruptive. It will have 
to be to do the significant change. In K-12 education, there is 
much work that needs to be done. Results from the most recent 
national assessment of educational progress show that students 
have still not recovered from the pandemic, if that is the key 
excuse.
    Students are still scoring at lower levels in math and 
reading than they were in 2019. One reason for these shocking 
scores is that many schools have lost focus on teaching the 
core skills needed for a successful career. While many teachers 
have done an admirable job helping students recover from 
learning loss, many systems have become fixated on teaching 
divisive ideologies.
    Unfortunately, these efforts have been fueled by the 
Federal Government itself. In 2024, researchers with Parents 
Defending Education found that Biden-Harris administration 
spent over 1 billion dollars in DEI grants. There is positive 
news to celebrate in the K-12 arena, however, school choice has 
grown dramatically in recent years.
    More than 1 million students are benefiting from private 
school choice programs, which is about double the number of 
students from just 3 years ago. Additionally, we have seen a 
grass roots movement of parent involvement. Decades of research 
has shown that parental involvement, regardless of 
socioeconomic status or background, has a strong impact on 
student achievement and long-term success.
    It is encouraging to see so many parents get more involved 
in their school systems, as well as the growth of parent 
advocacy organizations that support them. Their work has been 
vital to making schools function better.
    Turning to higher education, we have seen rampant 
antisemitism and stifling of speech on campuses, fueled by 
bloated DEI bureaucracies. America's adversaries are sending 
billions of foreign funds to schools to manipulate them. All of 
this has resulted in too many students being told what to 
think, instead of how to think.
    It is also the case that our higher education financing 
system is at a critical inflection point. President Biden 
attempted to spend 1 trillion dollars through executive actions 
on the Federal student loan bail-out program alone. 
Transferring student loan responsibilities onto the backs of 
taxpayers will not solve the underlying issue that the Federal 
student loan program is irreparably broken.
    What is needed now, more than ever, are real lasting 
reforms that protect both students and taxpayers from debt they 
cannot afford. Our Committee has hard work ahead of us to 
ensure our Nation's higher education system remains the crown 
jewel of the world.
    We also must address our broken workforce system. We have 
about 8 million unfilled jobs in our country, so there is 
clearly a mismatch between the skills our workforce has and the 
skills our employers need. Unfortunately, the Nation's 
workforce system authorized under Workforce Innovation and 
Opportunity Act, or WIOA, is failing to fill in the gap.
    Fortunately, our Committee made tremendous strides last 
Congress in addressing these challenges. A Stronger Workforce 
for America Act passed the House with strong bipartisan 
support, and after further negotiations with the Senate last 
year was poised for enactment.
    I want to thank former Chairwoman Virginia Foxx and Ranking 
Member Bobby Scott for their leadership on that bill. I look 
forward to taking it back up in this new Congress. While we 
have great challenges ahead of us, we also have great 
opportunities in front of us, and I look forward to working 
with all of our members to meet these challenges.
    That process starts today, and I am excited for the 
productive conversation we will have with this great panel of 
witnesses. With that, I yield to my friend, and Ranking Member, 
Mr. Scott.
    [The statement of Chairman Walberg follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Chairman Walberg. Good morning, 
everyone, and thank you for our witnesses for joining us today, 
and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing.
    I would like to first start with the elephant in the room, 
and there is current reporting that President Trump plans to 
issue an executive order to eliminate critical programs in the 
Department of Education and call on Congress to eliminate the 
entire Department.
    Then I recall that that is exactly what the Project 2025 
said the President should do. He said that on page 319 of 
Project 2025. The irony is not lost on me that we are here to 
discuss the State of American education, while our current 
administration is actively discussing how to dismantle the main 
Federal agency responsible for the safe quality education for 
all students.
    According to polls, the majority of the voters oppose the 
abolition of the Department of Education. I also know that I, 
and every Democrat will do what we can to ensure that the 
Department continues. Now, the issue at hand is reflected in 
the latest national assessment of educational progress data. 
Schools are struggling to make up the lost time in the 
classroom following the COVID-19 pandemic.
    Achievement gaps, which existed before the pandemic, have 
widened. According to that assessment, math and reading gaps 
between higher and lower performing students continue to rise, 
as black students continue to be more than 10 points behind 
their white peers in all subjects.
    In 2021, Democrats passed the largest, one-time investment 
in education in the history of the United States, in the 
American Rescue Plan Act, to provide schools with resources 
they needed to reopen classrooms safely, and make up for lost 
time due to the pandemic. Without this investment, we would 
undoubtedly be in a worse situation than today.
    The Rescue Plan Act was only a band-aid on the larger issue 
of underfunding in schools, and it is abundantly clear that we 
need sustained Federal investment over time to overcome decades 
of underfunding.
    Unfortunately, instead of investing in our children, 
Republicans are stuck on proposals that only create more 
challenges for students. Consider that the first education bill 
we considered this Congress targets indeed, bullies, 
transgender youth. Also, my Republican colleagues have 
misrepresented programs intended to expand diversity, equity, 
inclusion as the problem in education.
    Republicans have threatened to ban books, police bathrooms, 
take away funds from communities that need it most. I am sad to 
report the dministration is promoting a warped vision of DEI, 
discrimination, erasure and inequity.
    This all serves to distract Americans so that they will not 
notice the privatization of American education systems with 
taxpayer funds going to private schools, the resegregation of 
public schools, the erosion of services for students with 
disabilities, and cuts to student loan program, and distracts 
from the fact that the price of eggs is going up.
    While some folks may be hollering about imagined DEI 
problems, many in the public will fail to notice how the 
taxpayer's money is being siphoned away from public education 
and the student loan program to pay for tax cuts for the 
wealthy and well connected.
    Mr. Chairman, we can all agree that every student in this 
country should have access to safe, welcoming, well-funding 
learning environment, and that begins with eliminating 
disparities in education with sustained Federal funding.
    This Congress, Committee Democrats will reintroduce 
legislation, such as Rebuild America's Schools Act, which will 
make critical investments to repair and rebuild school 
facilities, particularly in high need areas.
    The Equity and Inclusion and Enforcement Act, which will 
restore private right of action for students, parents and local 
civil rights groups to bring discrimination claims based on 
disparity impact under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964, and the Strengthen Diversity Act, which would provide 
resources to states and school districts who want to 
voluntarily develop schools' plans to integrate their schools.
    We have to take steps to lower the cost of higher education 
for students and families, and to that end we will also 
reintroduce the Lowering Obstacles to Achievement Now, the LOAN 
Act, which will lower the costs of college for current and 
future student borrowers and their families by making critical 
reforms to the student aid system, including doubling the Pell 
Grant, improving public service loan forgiveness programs, and 
making loans more affordable and accessible.
    To that end, to promise our colleagues and students across 
the country that we will not go along with programs to 
dismantle our education system. We will fight any attempt to 
dismantle the Department, and so we do not know what the plan 
will be, but you can count on our opposition to any plan that 
will abolish the Department of Education and the programs in 
it.
    To that end, Democrats will always be with the well-being 
of students, teachers and parents across the country. With 
that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
    [The statement of Ranking Member Scott follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    

    Chairman Walberg. Thank you, gentleman. Pursuant to 
Committee Rule 8-C, all members who wish to insert written 
statements into the record may do so by submitting them to the 
Committee Clerk electronically in Microsoft Word format by 5 
p.m., 14 days after the date of this hearing, which is February 
19, 2025.
    Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 
14 days to allow such statements and other extraneous material 
referenced during the hearing to be submitted for the official 
hearing record.
    I will now turn to the introduction of our witnesses, we 
appreciate being here. Our first witness is Mrs. Nicole Neily, 
who is the President of Parents Defending Education in 
Arlington, Virginia. Welcome.
    Our next witness is Dr. Preston Cooper, who is a Senior 
Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, located in 
Washington, DC. Welcome, Mr. Cooper.
    Our third witness is Mrs. Janai Nelson, who is President 
and Director-Counsel, of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund in 
Washington, DC, welcome.
    Our final witness is Mr. Johnny C. Taylor, Jr., who is 
President and CEO of the Society for Human Resource Management 
in Alexandria, Virginia. Welcome.
    We thank you for all being here today and look forward to 
your testimony. I would like to remind the witnesses that we 
have read your written statements, which will appear in our 
full hearing record.
    I would ask that you each limit your oral presentation to a 
3-minute summary of your written statement. The clock will 
count down from 3 minutes because the Committee Members have 
many questions for you, and we would like to spend as much time 
as possible on those questions with your answers.
    Pursuant to Committee Rule 8-D, and Committee practice, 
however, we will not cutoff your testimony until you go too 
far. I also would like to remind the witnesses to be aware of 
their responsibility to provide accurate information to the 
Committee. First, I will recognize Ms. Neily, welcome.

     STATEMENT OF MRS. NICOLE NEILY, PRESIDENT, PARENTS
          DEFENDING EDUCATION, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA.

    Mrs. Neily. Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member Scott, and 
distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for inviting 
me. My name is Nicole Neily, and I am President and Founder of 
Parents Defending Education, and the Executive Director of PDE 
Action.
    American education is in crisis. For far too long U.S. 
schools have focused on everything but educating children, and 
as last week's NAEP scores have shown, our children are bearing 
the brunt of these bad decisions.
    Schools are focused on the wrong priorities. Identity 
politics permeate districts across America in word and deed. 
Children are regularly treated differently based on race. 
Color-conscious pedagogy, which considers colorblindness to be 
negative, is omnipresent in America's colleges of education.
    Eighty years after Brown v. Broad of Education, segregated 
activities persist in the guise of affinity groups, where 
students and teachers are included or excluded because of skin 
color. The diversity industrial complex promotes programs like 
this, conducting equity audits and hosting professional 
development trainings.
    Districts pay DEI consultants millions per year, 
incentivized by the billion dollars in education grants awarded 
by the Biden administration in the past 4 years. In the wake of 
October 7th, antisemitism spiked in both colleges and K-12 
schools alike.
    From lesson plans about settler-colonialism to swastikas on 
mirrors dismissed as Buddhist religious symbols, districts 
lackadaisical response to Jew hatred bore a sharp contrast to 
the antiracism fervor following George Floyd's murder.
    Foreign funding remains problematic. Our investigation into 
Confucious classrooms found districts around the country with 
ties to CCP linked entities, and similar programming by the 
Qatar Foundation also exists. The full scope of foreign 
influence in K-12 merits investigation and is also a 
significant problem in higher ed, which the Deterrent Act I 
note tackles head-on.
    Over the past several years, merit has been sacrificed on 
the altar of equity. Rather than challenging talented students 
to strive for greatness, schools are eliminating gifted and 
talented programs and AP classes, so that all students remain 
at the same level. We are witnessing the soviet-ification of 
American schools in real time.
    Finally, schools are unsafe. Under the guise of breaking 
the school to prison pipeline, districts have removed school 
resource officers, and moved toward non-punitive restorative 
justice, making classroom management impossible.
    Families are treated as the enemy. Trust between families 
and districts is fractured. Rather than partnering with 
parents, schools work against them. Families are being shut out 
of their children's lives. PDE has identified over 1,100 
districts around the country impacting more than 12 million 
children and counting, with parental exclusion policies, which 
State that parents do not have a right to know their child's 
gender at school.
    Districts should not keep secrets from families. As a 
country we spend billions of dollars on mental health for 
students, so why are schools telling kids that their parents' 
love is conditional, and maybe it is time to lead a double 
life?
    Over the past 4 years, parental rights were routinely 
disrespected by the Federal Government. When parents spoke up, 
they were attacked by the media and DOJ. Through our FOIAS, PDE 
discovered that the National School Boards Association worked 
with Department of Education officials to smear American 
families.
    As George Washington Carver said, ``Education is the key to 
unlock the golden door of freedom.'' The country's equity 
experiment has been an unequivocal failure, and it is time to 
move on.
    Let us refocus American schools on core subjects, 
prioritizing excellence and creating opportunities for those 
who work hard. Although battered, the American education system 
is not beyond repair, but to get things back on track it is 
going to take a genuine partnership between families and 
educators. Thank you.
    [The Statement of Mrs. Neily follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman Walberg. Thank you, Mrs. Neily, and thank you for 
setting the standard for 3 minutes. I now recognize Dr. Cooper.

       STATEMENT OF DR. PRESTON COOPER, SENIOR FELLOW,
       AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

    Mr. Cooper. Good morning, Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member 
Scott, and distinguished members of the Committee. Thank you 
for the opportunity to testify today on the State of 
postsecondary education and the Federal Government's role in 
shaping it.
    My name is Preston Cooper, and I am a Senior Fellow 
focusing on the economics of higher education at the American 
Enterprise Institute. Americans are losing confidence in the 
higher education system. According to the Wall Street Journal, 
56 percent of Americans believe that a 4-year college education 
is no longer worth the cost.
    This changing sentiment has translated into a 12 percent 
drop in college enrollment since 2010. To be sure, higher 
education can be a great investment for students, but all too 
often, that investment does not pay off. When students pay too 
much in tuition, or do not learn the skills they need to get a 
good job, or even fail to complete their degree programs at 
all, the decision to pursue higher education becomes less of an 
investment and more of a gamble.
    The Federal Government heavily subsidizes higher education 
programs with little return on investment for students. Between 
2018 and 2022, I estimate that at least 37 billion dollars in 
Pell grants, and 86 billion dollars in Federal student loans 
flowed to degree programs that did not lead to a return on 
investment for students.
    When students pay too much for college, relative to what 
they learned leaving school, it becomes harder to pay down 
their loan balances. Before the pandemic, 11 million borrowers 
were either in default, or delinquent on their debts. Millions 
more were taking advantage of income-driven repayment, loan 
forbearance, and other options to reduce or eliminate their 
monthly payments.
    These higher rates of loan non-payments mean that the 
Congressional Budget Office expects that taxpayers will lose 
223 billion dollars on student loans newly originated between 
2025 and 2034, and that is to say nothing of expected losses on 
outstanding loans.
    While former President Biden's largely unsuccessful efforts 
to cancel student loans on mass, did little to help matters, 
the student loan programs' problems predate his administration. 
Fortunately, Congress has a unique opportunity to address many 
of the longstanding problems in the Federal student loan 
program.
    The College Cost Reduction Act introduced last year, takes 
a three-pronged approach to fixing things, reforming the 
student loan repayment system, imposing sensible caps on 
borrowing, and holding colleges accountable for how well they 
serve students. Postsecondary education in America suffers from 
high costs, uneven financial value, and a chaotic student loan 
system that creates more problems than it solves.
    Addressing these challenges would represent a strong first 
step toward restoring public confidence in American higher 
education. Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to 
your questions.
    [The Statement of Dr. Preston Cooper follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Cooper. Now I recognize 
Mrs. Nelson for your 3 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF MRS. JANAI NELSON, PRESIDENT AND DIREC- 
     TOR-COUNSEL,  NAACP   LEGAL  DEFENSE  FUND,   WASH-
     INGTON, D.C.

    Mrs. Nelson. Good morning. Good morning, Chairman Walberg 
and Ranking Member Scott, and distinguished Committee members. 
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am Janai Nelson, 
President and Director Counsel of the Legal Defense Fund.
    Since our founding 85 years ago by Thurgood Marshall, we 
have fought to ensure that black students, and indeed all 
students, have equal access to education. Seventy years ago, 
the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Brown vs. Board of 
Education ended legal, racial segregation in public schools.
    Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Warren said that 
equal public education is the very foundation of good 
citizenship. Public education is critical to the health of our 
economy, and it is essential to the viability of our multi-
racial democracy.
    Sadly, Brown's mandate to provide all students with quality 
learning experiences that respect their full humanity, 
intelligence, and dignity regardless of their race, ethnicity, 
or gender identity, or ability is under fierce attack.
    Under the guise of promoting so-called school choice, or 
parental rights, has emerged a reincarnated massive resistance 
to high-quality, equitable and inclusive public education that 
performs for all.
    This massive resistance 2.0 seeks to achieve what George 
Wallace and his extremist acolytes could not, the hoarding of 
public resources to fund private education for a privileged few 
at the expense of the many.
    Our school system disproportionately fails low-income, 
black, brown, indigenous, disabled, and new English learners in 
alarming ways. They face vastly unequal educational resources, 
leading to significant disparities in academic outcomes.
    We can all agree that our K through 12 system must do 
better, yet instead of working to fix these persistent actual 
threats to the future of our country, a well-funded cabal of 
activist organizations is lobbying for a separatist private 
school system funded by public tax dollars.
    As the organization that vanquished State sponsored racial 
segregation in 1954, LDF stands firmly against a publicly 
financed, separatist, private schools system in 2025. Over the 
past 30 years, racial segregation has steadily worsened in 
public schools. This shift correlates with two major changes, 
the decrease in Court mandated desegregation oversight, and the 
proliferation of voucher programs that defund public schools.
    Privatizing public education and shirking Federal 
responsibility would be disastrous for the 50 million students 
and their families who rely on public schools and the equal 
access that they are legally mandated to provide.
    President Trump's orders to restrict teaching and learning 
in inclusive and supportive environments, and his threats to 
dismantle the Department of Education, and upend critical 
enforcement of Federal civil rights laws will demolish the very 
foundation of good citizenship.
    We must reject these proposals out of the Project 2025 
playbook and approach public education with common sense and 
common purpose, not separatism and self-dealing. This Congress 
owes it to the millions of families who are scared of what 
these radical policies will mean for their children to choose a 
better path.
    Indeed, if we are being serious about educating all of 
America's children equally, we must implement a proactive 
vision that centers evidence-based interventions, like 
universal pre-K, competitive teacher salaries, rigorous 
standards, whole child supports, as well as gun safety 
legislation to eliminate both barriers to equal education and 
to truly protect our children.
    Our country is at an inflection point and so is American 
education. We can build a system in which all students can 
thrive or allow our schools to remain spaces of division and 
inequality, with an escape route for some to line the pockets 
of private actors with public dollars.
    I hope this Congress will invest in the promise of every 
child in America by strengthening our public education system 
that serves us all. Thank you, and I look forward to your 
questions.
    [The Statement of Mrs. Nelson follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman Walberg. Thank you, Mrs. Nelson. I now recognize 
you, Mr. Taylor.

   STATEMENT OF MR. JOHNNY C. TAYLOR, JR., PRESIDENT AND
    CEO,  SOCIETY  FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT,  ALEX-
    ANDRIA, VIRGINIA

    Mr. Taylor. Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member Scott and 
distinguished members of the Committee, thank you. Thank you 
for giving us and me the opportunity today. At SHRM, we 
represent 340,000 H.R. professionals worldwide. We see 
firsthand the challenges of today's workforce.
    I just came back from Charlotte, North Carolina, where I 
presented to the management team, the top 250 executives of 
Bank of America, and I can tell you they agree with everything 
that I am about to say. The education to employment pipeline is 
leaky, it is broken, and it is busted.
    Now that said, our system is still the best in the world. 
We are proud Americans. Imagine what we could be if we 
unleashed the power of all of the talent. First, higher 
education is leaking. We have invested billions, yet degrees do 
not always align with market needs, as Dr. Cooper just 
mentioned.
    Employers are shifting to skills-based hiring, valuing 
experience and certifications over diplomas and degrees. 
Initiatives like Michigan State's Align Center, for example, 
and North Carolina's My Future NC Initiatives, prove that we 
can better connect education to employment.
    Second, K through 12 education is really broken. We have 
undervalued vocational training, leaving students unprepared. 
Nearly two-thirds of our students lack reading proficiency. 
Programs like Aspire, which is the Aspire Trade High School in 
North Carolina, and John Bounds High School's agriscience 
program show hands on learning works.
    I have a 14-year-old daughter right now in Virginia Public 
Schools. I know what is happening in our public schools, and I 
know that many of you have devoted your lives, including some 
becoming teachers of the year because we are committed to 
making this work.
    Finally, our untapped talent pools remain overlooked. 
Millions of skilled veterans, older workers, those who are 
formerly incarcerated individuals with disabilities, they have 
and are ready to contribute. We need them in the workforce, as 
the Chairman mentioned. We have 7, almost 8 million, open jobs 
in America. We do not have the luxury to exclude anyone from 
the workforce.
    If you are ready, willing, and able, we want you there. We 
commend Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member Scott, Chairwoman Foxx 
and others for their leadership in updating the WIOA system. We 
believe that we need to get this done in Congress. We are 
heartened by the bipartisan interest in continuing the efforts 
of this Congress, and encourage the following key provisionss 
to be retained.
    Direct at least the 50 percent of funds for training, 
leverage employer expertise, and create new staffing options. 
Members of the Committee, the solution is clear, we need a 
national strategy that aligns education with workforce demand, 
and SHRM stands ready to partner with you.
    This just is not about jobs; it is about people's lives and 
their livelihoods. Thank you, and I look forward to your 
questions.
    [The Statement of Mr. Taylor, Jr. Follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Taylor, and thanks to each 
of the witnesses. Under Committee Rule 9, we will now question 
the witnesses under the 5-minute rule. I ask members to keep 
our questions succinct, so the witnesses have time to answer. I 
now recognize myself for 5 minutes of questioning.
    Ms. Neily, in your testimony you mentioned the problem of 
foreign influence in both higher education and K-12. Although 
the last administration failed to take this threat seriously, 
the Committee introduced multiple pieces of legislation last 
Congress to help address this serious problem.
    Can you talk more about what steps Congress should take to 
protect our students and the national security?
    Ms. Neily. Big picture we have three things we need to do. 
We need transparency, we need notification, and we need 
consequences. Last session's Trace Act and the Deterrent Act 
addressed these by providing access to curriculum, so parents 
could know what their children were learning.
    Lowering the reporting threshold for the higher education 
foreign funding, creating K to 12 reporting, and also looking 
into endowment funding, as well as disclosure to intelligence 
agencies about what money is coming in.
    Parents need to know so that they can make decisions 
whether they want their child in the classroom or not, and also 
whether school officials are receiving compensation, or 
donations from foreign entities.
    Finally, there must be consequences. When these rules are 
broken, foreign actors, as well as schools, be they 
universities or districts, must be held accountable for that.
    Chairman Walberg. Thank you. Dr. Cooper, colleges and 
universities often blame a lack of State funding for college 
costs increasing, excuse me, twice as fast as inflation.
    Increased costs always get my throat, over the last two 
decades, yet those very same colleges have billions of dollars 
to spare when it comes to hiring administrators, funding DEI 
projects, or renovating their new football stadiums.
    In your view, is the lack of affordability at many 
institutions a funding issue, or a spending problem?
    Mr. Cooper. I would say it is a spending problem. The 
United States colleges and universities spend more per student 
than any other colleges and universities in the developed 
world, more than twice as much as many European counties. What 
is more, State funding has actually been increasing on a per 
student basis over the last 10 years or so, yet we still see 
tuition go up.
    I would argue that it is not a State funding, which is the 
issue, it is the underlying costs, which are the issue.
    Chairman Walberg. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Taylor, as you know 
we almost got WIOA reform across the finish line last Congress. 
You talked in your testimony about provisions of that bill that 
would improve the Nation's workforce system, but for members 
who are new to this Committee, in this Congress, could you talk 
at a high level about why it is important for Congress to 
finish our work on those reform efforts?
    Second, I would add to that, in other words, why is WIOA 
reform an important effort for us to take back up this 
Congress?
    Mr. Taylor. Mr. Chairman, with the reauthorization of WIOA, 
we have a generational opportunity to strengthen our Nation's 
laws to ensure that American workers have the skills and the 
knowledge to succeed. You mentioned earlier we have got 8 
million--almost 8 million jobs open in this country. We need to 
figure out how to solve for that gap.
    Employers are hurting, and it therefore affects American 
competitiveness. Many workers are seeking an alternative path 
to a job that does not involve a 4-year degree. WIOA and its 
programs are an opportunity for us to deliver that to workers, 
and key to delivering on this promise, is to ensure that more, 
not less WIOA dollars, go to skilling and upskilling dollars 
that provide quality.
    That is what this is all about. What we know with 
everything that AI is about to do to us, from a displacement 
standpoint, WIOA becomes more important, not less.
    Chairman Walberg. Yes. Thank you. Then briefly, Ms. Neily, 
give us your opinion why in recent years as parents have re-
engaged, especially after COVID, that they are seeing regularly 
as a danger to our public education system especially, but to 
education in general?
    Mrs. Neily. Unfortunately, parents when they started to get 
engaged in the system ask questions and demanded accountability 
that the educational industrial complex was not prepared to 
offer. They have been used to having our children behind closed 
doors for decades, spending money as they want, and programing 
them as they see fit.
    The Michigan Democratic party in the wake of the 2022 mid-
term elections said that the purpose of a public education is 
to teach students what society needs them to know. They 
presupposed that they know what families need--what students 
need to know, not what families want them to learn.
    I think there is a big divide, and that is why I am excited 
that we have an administration that now views families and 
students as stakeholders in this discussion, rather than just 
the activists and organizations that have been funding and 
demanding money for so long.
    Chairman Walberg. Thank you. I now recognize my friend from 
Connecticut, Mr. Courtney.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the 
witnesses for being here today. Before I go into my questions, 
I have to at least put on the record that when WIOA was agreed 
to by both sides, it was actually included in the continuing 
resolution that was submitted by Speaker Mike Johnson, and then 
within the space of less than 6 hours, because of the 
intervention of the Trump transition team, lead by Elon Musk, 
that there were too many pages in the CR, that provision was 
stripped from the bill.
    We would--today, if the Speaker had stuck to the agreement 
that he had agreed to and negotiated, we would have those WIOA 
reforms in place today, but unfortunately again, the external 
pressure by the incoming administration tanked it. That is just 
again, a real step backward for all of the issues that we agree 
on in terms of filling the job openings that are in the U.S. 
economy today.
    Mr. Scott began his remarks talking about the elephant in 
the room. There is, in my opinion, two elephants. One is to 
abolish the Department of Education. The second is the 
Reconciliation Bill, which again, we are seeing, you know, 
reporting that huge grant programs and tax assistance for 
higher education are on the chopping block.
    The human sacrifice to make sure that President Trump gets 
his tax cuts for the rich. That is what is being discussed 
right now in terms of paying for the Reconciliation Bill.
    Attorney Nelson, pop quiz for you. The Department of 
Education was created by statute in 1979. To abolish the 
Department of Education, Congress would actually have to vote 
on legislation to eliminate the agency. Is that correct?
    Mrs. Nelson. Yes.
    Mr. Courtney. Right. Since the enactment of the Department 
of Education, there have been consistent attempts by far right 
winged Republicans in Congress, the last one as recently as 
March 24, 2023. Mr. Massie offered an amendment to H.R. 5 to 
abolish the Department of Education. That measure was defeated 
265 to 161, 60 Republicans voted in my opinion, sensibly, to 
make sure the Department of Education stayed in place.
    Again, the President is going to issue his executive 
orders, pretending that he is actually doing--achieving this 
goal, but as we have seen so far in the Federal District Courts 
where his executive orders have actually been put to the test 
of Article 1, Section 9 in terms of Congress's authority for 
funding programs, he is batting 0 for 3.
    Again, I think it is important for us to remember a reality 
check that if the Department of Education's existence actually 
resides in this branch of government in terms of moving 
forward.
    Among the programs that the Department of Education funds 
talking about workforce needs is the Perkins Grant Program, and 
again, in my district, visiting career technical trade schools 
talking to comprehensive high schools that are now creating 
career pathway programs, with money coming from the U.S. 
Department of Education, to pay for welding boots, setups for 
nursing programs.
    The fact of the matter is that the Department of Education 
is a major, major partner and contributor to again, achieving 
the goals, Mr. Taylor, that you have mentioned, is that 
correct?
    Mr. Taylor. Yes.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you. Now, in terms of the 
Reconciliation Bill, which again, we have seen that every 
Committee, you know, in Mar-a-Lago has been asked to again, 
offer up offsets and pay for's to pay for the tax cuts. One of 
the proposals that again, was reported by Politico, is a 
Republican proposal would make college scholarships taxable 
income.
    Again, Mr. Chairman, I would ask to enter into the record 
an article from Forbes Magazine, hardly a far-left publication, 
that again, describes what this proposal is, is that to make 
scholarships taxable.
    Chairman Walberg. Without objection.
    [The information of Mr. Courtney follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you. Again, I think really it does not 
take a lot of imagination, and maybe again, Attorney Nelson can 
help with this. It is just that taxing the scholarships raises 
costs, and shifts costs to students, in terms of college 
affordability. Is that correct?
    Mrs. Nelson. Yes, it would.
    Mr. Courtney. Again, today's sort of discussion, which is 
sort of beginning on this premise that, you know, we are going 
to have a normal discussion, as far as education policy. The 
fact of the matter is that the elephants in the room that Mr. 
Scott talked about in terms of basically blowing up the 
Department of Education, and shifting costs to students is the 
real test, and that is what we are going to be confronted with.
    Again, as the Reconciliation Bill comes forward in any 
package to abolish the Department of Education, and again, I 
look forward to joining those Republicans who voted no to 
abolish the Department of Education to make sure that that 
measure fails. I yield back.
    Chairman Walberg. Thank you, gentleman. I recognize the 
gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we are very 
fortunate that we actually will be joined soon by the 
Ambassador to the United Nations, Elise Stefanik. That will 
certainly enhance our hearing today. With that in mind, as we 
consider the State of education, I know first-hand of the 
positive parts of this, and that I am grateful my wife Roxanne 
taught at an alternative school, giving young students the 
opportunity of a second chance.
    My father served on the school board in Charleston, South 
Carolina, and my wife and I appreciate teachers where after the 
third grade our four sons succeeded in math, only because of 
educators, resulting in our oldest son Alan being the Attorney 
General of South Carolina.
    Our second son is an orthopedic surgeon. Our third son is 
commercial real eState, and our youngest is in industrial 
engineering. These successes are really due to educators making 
a difference. With that in mind, I believe it is because of the 
success of local elected school boards, and I very much support 
President Donald Trump for his courage to promote local elected 
school boards, with the elimination of the duplicative, 
wasteful, interfering, and Federal Department of Education.
    The funding, clearly, should go to the students, and not to 
bureaucrats. With that in mind, Dr. Cooper, the American 
Enterprise Institute is greatly appreciated for making a 
difference promoting limited government expanded freedom. The 
AEI is crucial for addressing the challenges of American 
families, and we want to thank you for AEI.
    In your testimony, you note that the Grad Plus Program 
provides effectively unlimited loans to students, allowing them 
to borrow institutionally determine attendance. In other words, 
whether a school says is 10,000 or 10 million, the Federal 
Government will provide a loan.
    The creation of this has coincided with doubling of the 
amount of graduate students borrowing. Given the structure of 
uncapped lending, is there evidence that colleges have used 
this to unduly increase tuition?
    Mr. Cooper. There is absolutely evidence to that effect. As 
you mentioned, the Grad Plus Program is effectively unlimited. 
Students can borrow up to the cost of attendance, as defined by 
the institution, which means that if the institution says it 
costs $200,000 or 200 million dollars, students are legally 
allowed to borrow up to that limit, defined by the institution.
    This has resulted in increases in tuition at the graduate 
level. A study published last year found that for every $1.00 
of additional Grad Plus money that went out the door, colleges 
hiked grad school tuition by 64 cents. The Grad Plus Program 
has grown enormously in scale and scope since it was created in 
2006, and graduate student loans now account for half of new 
student loans issued every year by the Federal Government.
    I would argue that, you know, the Grad Plus Program has 
gotten relatively out of control, and some sensible caps in 
borrowing are needed.
    Mr. Wilson. Well, we look forward to AEI coming and 
producing alternatives. With that in mind too, Mr. Taylor, you 
were right that the workforce training has delivered tremendous 
success with partnerships between the employers and educators. 
A Stronger Workforce for America Act was authored by our former 
Chair, Virginia Foxx.
    Do you see what has been the success of that? In my home 
State of South Carolina, we are so grateful. In the district I 
represent Michelin Corporation, the largest manufacturing 
facility in the world. BMW, we want everybody to have an X5. 
Those are made in South Carolina.
    Then while you are at it, we can buy a Volvo, a Mercedes 
van, Samsung products, Bridgestone, Japan, and Lockheed Martin, 
Boeing 787-10. We will be happy to sell everything because of 
workforce development, so how can this be achieved?
    Mr. Taylor. Well, you have taken my comments because that 
is it. It speaks for itself. Industry has benefited the economy 
in South Carolina, and ultimately in our country and globally 
has benefited from that successful piece of litigation, 
legislation. I think we need more of it. We need to commit and 
double down on it, and so we violently agree that this has 
meant a significant win for employers and employees.
    Mr. Wilson. Well, hey, it is job creation.
    Mr. Taylor. Right.
    Mr. Wilson. We see it as South Carolina is now the leading 
exporter of cars and tires of any State in the union. I do not 
want people in Michigan to know that, but that is true. With 
that in mind, Ms. Neily, too, indeed parents are under attack, 
but I am really grateful that Representative Julia Letlow, and 
the Republicans in the House passed the Parents Bill of Rights. 
Is this legislation working?
    Mrs. Neily. It is a terrific first step. We look forward to 
continued engagement. We think there needs to be teeth. There 
needs to be actual, you know, it needs to be passed by the 
Senate, and but I am optimistic that going forward we will be 
able to make sure that we deliver as a country for American 
parents, and that we actually listen to them.
    Mr. Wilson. Well, thank you all for being here today. I 
yield back.
    Chairman Walberg. Thank you for most of your comments, Mr. 
Wilson. We are still the auto capital. I recognize my friend 
from California now, Mr. Takano.
    Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cooper, do you 
believe that the Department of Education should be abolished?
    Mr. Cooper. Well, I think that the Department of Education 
was----
    Mr. Takano. I am just looking for a yes or no answer.
    Mr. Cooper. I think whether the programs that are currently 
operated by the Department of Education----
    Mr. Takano. Do you think that the Department of Education 
should be abolished?
    Mr. Cooper. I think it is immaterial whether the programs 
are operated out of Education or the Treasury Department.
    Mr. Takano. Do you think the Department of Education should 
be abolished, sir?
    Mr. Cooper. I really--I really cannot say because----
    Mr. Takano. I will take that as a no. Ms. Neily, do you 
think that the Department of Education should be abolished?
    Ms. Neily. We won two world wars without having a 
Department of Education.
    Mr. Takano. You do not believe it should exist.
    Ms. Neily. I did not say that. I said we won two world wars 
without having a Department of Education.
    Mr. Takano. Mr. Cooper--Mr. Cooper--Madam, this is my time. 
Mr. Cooper, do you believe that the Department of Education 
should be abolished?
    Mr. Taylor, Mr. Taylor.
    Mr. Taylor. I have to agree. I do not have a yes or no 
answer.
    Mr. Takano. You do not have a yes or no answer. All right.
    Mr. Taylor. The work of the Department of Education needs 
to continue. Whether or not the Department of Education, as an 
institution. See too often I think we----
    Mr. Takano. Okay, fine, fine.
    Mr. Taylor. The work needs to continue.
    Mr. Takano. I get what you are saying. I get what you are 
saying. Whether we abolish it, or we reorganize it, do you 
believe that the President alone, Mr. Cooper, can eliminate the 
Department of Education, or reorganize it, or does he need a 
vote of Congress to do so? Does he need to work with Congress 
to do that?
    Mr. Cooper. To eliminate it outright would require a vote 
of Congress, but there are probably some things he can do by 
executive order.
    Mr. Takano. He can just stop funding certain 
congressionally appropriated programs? He could just say I am 
not going to fund those, and tell Elon Musk just find that 
account, and do not fund it?
    Mr. Cooper. It would depend on the program.
    Mr. Takano. Okay. You would agree that there are programs 
that are congressionally appropriated that he would need, you 
know, he just does not have the power to impound?
    Mr. Cooper. I would argue that if Congress has specifically 
appropriated funding for a certain program, than you know, the 
Education Department is obligated to fund that program, but 
there is some flexibility the Department has.
    Mr. Takano. All right. Essentially to eliminate the 
Department of Education, to abolish it, he would need the vote 
of Congress to do so?
    Mr. Cooper. I agree with that. I agree with that.
    Mr. Takano. Ms. Neily.
    Mrs. Neily. I am not a constitutional scholar, and this is 
outside of my area of expertise.
    Mr. Takano. You do not agree that a President--that the 
Department of Education, which was established in law through a 
bill passed by Congress, signed into law by the President, that 
to abolish the Department of Education, that he would also need 
a vote of Congress to do that?
    Mrs. Neilly. This is outside of my scope of area of 
expertise.
    Mr. Takano. You do not know. You do not know, but you are 
an expert on----
    Mrs. Neilly. I represent a parents' organization.
    Mr. Takano. Okay, thank you.
    Mr. Taylor.
    Mr. Taylor. Yes, absolutely.
    Mr. Takano. You would absolutely need to vote. Well, I am 
glad that we have at least two witnesses, you know, from the 
majority, who believe that a vote of Congress would be 
necessary, and I would hope that they would remind my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle what happened at 
USAID over the weekend was illegal.
    That a President cannot unilaterally dismantle an agency or 
a Department that was established in law. That what he did was 
outside the law and illegal. I mean, this hearing is called The 
State of American Education, but from what I am seeing from the 
other side's behavior is that it really should be called The 
Republicans Surrender to a Would Be King.
    I would love to discuss the State of education in America, 
and I would love to have any semblance of productive discussion 
in this Committee, but the only solution that Republicans have 
offered us to the pile of problems that sit before us, whether 
it is the abysmal childhood literacy rates in this country, 
rampant gun violence in schools, the astronomical cost of 
higher education and lifelong shackles of debt that we are 
signing up our college students for, is to abolish the 
Department of Education.
    Well, either way, let us imagine that legally or illegally, 
the Department of Education has been dismantled. The Department 
protects students and veterans who have been defrauded and are 
victims of predatory loan schemes for profit colleges. This is 
critical for veterans who are disproportionately affected by 
the student debt crisis.
    Before COVID, student veterans had a 46 percent default 
rate on their loans. Mr. Cooper, if a veteran is defrauded out 
of their GI Bill benefits by one of the institutions known to 
prey on veterans, can they recoup that benefit?
    Mr. Cooper. For veterans aid I am not sure. For Federal 
student loans, they can submit a claim to the Borrower Defense 
Process to have their loans discharged.
    Mr. Takano. Well, the answer is no. Once the GI Bill 
education benefits have been used by the students, they are 
gone forever. My Republican colleagues continue to propose 
cutting regulations, which protect these student veterans, 
including a loan relief after attending a failed school, rules 
that prevent colleges from preying on veteran's GI benefits, 
and tools to discharge debt for students who have been 
defrauded by their institution. I yield back Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman, and I recognize 
the gentleman from Florida--Georgia, excuse me, Georgia, Mr. 
Allen.
    Mr. Allen. Yes, we were in Florida last week. Thank you, 
Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing today. Before 
I ask questions, I would like to briefly touch on school 
choice. Of course, we hear the same old talking points from the 
other side, yes. We got to turn education in this country 
around, and it is going to take some bold, strong efforts to do 
that.
    Innovation is where it is at. Somehow, we have got to 
motivate students too. I mean obviously in this indoctrination 
of children is ridiculous. I mean, you know, it is reading, 
writing and arithmetic, you know, it worked real well for a 
long time. You know, a child's future success is often 
determined early in life, and part of that quality is their K 
through 12 education.
    Parents and children should have the chance to choose an 
education path that is right for them. That is why I am so 
excited to hear the current administration speaking so forcibly 
in favor of school choice.
    It is an 80 percent issue with parents in this country. 
With that being said, Mr. Taylor, with rising student loan debt 
and many young people reconsidering the value of the 
traditional college degree, there is a growing need for 
businesses to prioritize skills-based hiring over degree 
requirements.
    Last year, the CEOs of Walmart and Home Depot co-authored 
an op-ed, Not Everyone Needs a College Degree, outlining the 
importance of this shift across the industries. SHRM has been 
actively encouraging its members to adopt skills-based hiring 
practices.
    From your perspective, are more businesses embracing this 
approach, and what additional steps can be taken to accelerate 
this shift at the national left?
    Mr. Taylor. The answer is yes. For the last four or 5 years 
if you were not following it, we have experienced a turnover 
tsunami, as they call it, as well as the great resignation. We 
employers need talent. In a knowledge-based economy, you lose 
if you do not have the best talent.
    The best talent does not necessarily, and I want to be 
clear because we are not anti-college and university degree 
attainment, the best talent shows up in different ways. With 
skill to credentials, ultimately what we want is people who can 
do the work.
    Whether or not they have a degree, and whether or not that 
degree is from a fancy school, employers are committed to 
allowing--listen, we have got to fill these jobs, and we are 
filling the jobs because we have too many people who are under 
skilled.
    Our job is to eliminate, and I represent the world's 
largest association of H.R. professionals, we have got to get 
back to finding out do you have the skills to do the job, not 
necessarily the paper that says you have the skills to do the 
job.
    Mr. Allen. Well, let it be said Bill Gates dropped out of 
college because he happened to know more than the people that 
were teaching him. Mr. Taylor, while we all understand the 
value of a 4-year degree, it is becoming clear that we need to 
shift the narrative around career pathways.
    Prior to my tenure in Congress, I owned a construction 
company in Georgia. I understand first-hand the importance of 
having a trained workforce. Currently, there are over 400,000 
open jobs in construction, and 40 percent of the construction 
workforce is set to retire in the next decade.
    Congress has taken an important step in supporting 
individuals for certain skilled trade careers by championing 
the bipartisan Workforce Pell Act, which would expand Pell 
grant eligibility for short-term training programs. However, 
with critical labor shortages, additional action is needed.
    Mr. Taylor, beyond this legislation, what more can Congress 
do to expand access to skilled trades in education, both in 
high schools, and through workforce training programs to build 
a strong talent pipeline? In other words, there are some people 
that are motivated by other things.
    Mr. Taylor. Right.
    Mr. Allen. Like skills. How do we tap into that?
    Mr. Taylor. Well, it starts in the K through 12 system. I 
remember going through school, and we recognized--we have 
everyone stand up at the end of your 12th grade and say who is 
going to college. The people who were not going to college were 
not recognized. We have got to start with letting people know 
it is okay not to go pursue formal education in the way that we 
have historically thought of that.
    That it is okay to go get and acquire skills and they have 
been credentialed, and then ultimately a credential that says 
to an employer you can do the work. The narrative must change 
early that you have not failed because you did not pursue 
college. That is number one.
    Second, and you have rightly pointed out, the passage of a 
legislation. We have got to now talk about it a lot, and 
encourage employers while there are people who will say they 
will hire someone without a degree, what all of SHRM's research 
says is you put someone in front of you, and that person does 
not have a degree, but the other person has experience, we 
still have a bias toward people who have degrees, even for jobs 
that they clearly do not require degrees.
    This is going to require a collective commitment by 
industry, H.R. professionals, and thanks to you we have 
government backing to make jobs available for people who can do 
the jobs irrespective of the skills--the degree that they may 
or not may not have.
    Mr. Allen. Mr. Taylor, I am out of time. I have two more 
questions that I want to submit to you, and I would like to 
provide, if you would provide answers to those questions for 
the record.
    Mr. Taylor. Will do so immediately, thank you.
    Mr. Allen. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Walberg. Thank you, gentleman. Now, I recognize 
the gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. Adams, Dr. Adams.
    Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member for 
hosting this hearing today, and to the witnesses, thank you for 
being here. Mr. Taylor, it is good to see you again. Let me 
just say this. I spent 40 years in the classroom, 40 years. I 
did not read about education in a report. I lived it, and I 
will tell you right now that the way things are going, we are 
failing our children.
    That starts with teachers because if we do not invest in 
the people standing at the front of the classroom, we cannot 
expect students to succeed. Ms. Nelson, my first question is to 
you. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 
according to the 2020-21 school year, only 6 percent of 
teachers are identified as black.
    Why is Federal investment in teacher diversity crucial to 
all student's success?
    Ms. Nelson. Well, first, Representative Adams, thank you so 
much for your service as a teacher. It is critical that 
students in our multi-racial democracy see themselves in the 
teachers that stand before them in their classrooms, in the 
school administrators, and in other leaders in this country.
    It is important that they see representation and diversity 
in every position of leadership, and it starts in the 
classroom. It starts with their teachers. We also know the 
Legal Defense Fund's Thurgood Marshall Institute has done 
research that proves that when black students are taught by 
black teachers, and are taught by a more diverse faculty, their 
achievement soars.
    If we want to invest in our students, we want to invest in 
a diverse faculty as well.
    Ms. Adams. Thank you. You know, this is not just about who 
is in the classroom. It is also about which institutions are 
being given the resources to uplift black students. HBCUs make 
up 3 percent of colleges in America, but we are producing 17 
percent of all black bachelor's degree graduates, 24 percent of 
black STEM degree graduates, 40 percent of black engineers.
    Ms. Nelson, how are HBCUs uniquely positioned to support 
the growth and development of black students and their 
communities? If you can be brief, I want to get some more 
questions.
    Ms. Nelson. Sure. HBCUs have long punched above their 
weight, despite the fact that they have been deprived of 
adequate funding. We know that 13 billion dollars of land 
grants have not been distributed to the institutions that 
deserve them by mandate of statute, so HBCUs deserve greater 
investment, and as you noted, they not only deliver the 
greatest number of graduates, they delivered 40 percent of CBC 
members as well.
    Ms. Adams. Yes, ma'am. Thank you very much for that, and 
thank you for the work that you are doing. I really appreciate 
that very much. Mr. Taylor, let me ask you a question. As Chair 
of the White House Initiative on HBCUs during the first Trump 
administration, you saw firsthand how underfunding holds these 
institutions back.
    HBCUs contribute 16.5 billion dollars to our economy every 
year, and that is the return on investment. Our schools are 
still being short-changed. Do you believe that Congress should 
be investing more, and if so, what do you think is the hold up?
    Mr. Taylor. Well, and thank you for the opportunity. For 
those who do not know, I ran the Thurgood Marshall College 
Fund, the country's largest organization committed to advancing 
and protecting the policies for our country's publicly 
supported, so State HBCUs.
    I think I start with the fact that HBCUs are HBCUs. That is 
not a race-based designation. In fact, several HBCUs have more 
non-black students than black students so that distinguishes 
them from them. It is not a race-based distinction. These are 
institutions that are open to all, and historically have shown 
that to be the case, so it is really good that we have the 
numbers, but even still, these institutions are not that.
    What I did under the Trump administration, along with the 
support of Secretary Betsy DeVos at the time, and President 
Trump, was to get the highest level of funding for HBCUs ever 
to that point. It still was not enough, to your point, and the 
Biden administration has continued that work, so this is not a 
political issue for us. These are incredibly important historic 
jewels that need to be funded.
    It is not about the institutions, it is about the students 
who attend those institutions, who we, in the employer side, 
need to fill those 7 or 8 million open jobs, so they are 
critical to our workforce diversity.
    Ms. Adams. Thank you. Let me move on, and ask about the 
Augustus Hawkins Center of Excellence, the grant, a program 
that is designed to support an array of teachers, and address 
shortages and that funded an HBCU in my State.
    Mr. Taylor. Yes.
    Ms. Adams. North Carolina Central, NCCU as we say. It was 
listed in the recent Office of Management and Budget memo, 
freezing Federal funding. Now, would you agree that this grant 
was on that list?
    Mr. Taylor. That concerns me. I have two NCCU graduates 
sitting behind me, one a three-time North Carolina Central 
graduate, and one who received his undergraduate degree, who 
happens, by the way, not to be black, and he attended a 
historically black college and university.
    Anything that takes away from not funding or defunding 
programs that work is not good for our country.
    Ms. Adams. Yes. You mentioned that not all of the students 
who attend are African American students. As a matter of fact, 
we have a former Governor of North Carolina, who got--Governor 
Easley, who received his degree from NCCU. Do you believe that 
the attempt to freeze those funds align with the Committee?
    Chairman Walberg. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Ms. Adams. In expanding the educator pipeline, and you can 
send me that in writing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Walberg. Thank you. I thank the gentlelady. I now 
recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Thompson.
    Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all 
of our witnesses that are here today, on an incredibly 
important topic. I look forward to working with you, Mr. 
Chairman, your leadership of this Committee throughout this 
Congress.
    Ms. Neily, I am a firm believer that a student's health and 
growth contribute to academic success, and as you have noted, 
and we have had a troubling trend in recent years of academic 
declines across the country. To that end, I recently introduced 
H.R. 649, the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act, which allows 
school food service providers the flexibility to serve students 
all types of milk in school lunches, including whole milk.
    Can you describe, as a parent yourself, the benefit of 
providing students with a whole milk option in the school 
cafeteria?
    Mrs. Neily. Sure. Well, as a parent, my daughter is 
underweight, and whole milk actually is one of the few things 
that she drinks, and so I am happy that I know she is at least 
getting some nutrients, in addition to all the Doritos she has. 
Beyond that, certainly we want schools to have the flexibility 
to serve students both what they want, as well as what they 
need.
    I think we have all seen the pictures of school lunches 
that have been thrown out, apples that are being wasted, both 
from a financial standpoint, as well as just a nutritional 
standpoint. I think that is of concern, and so they have 
schools be flexible to choose what they want, I think it is 
really important.
    Mr. Thompson. Well, thank you for that. As the Co-Chair of 
the bipartisan Career and Technical Education Caucus, once 
again, this Congress I continue to see the rewards of high 
quality, low cost, CTE programs that provide learners of all 
ages with tools they need to succeed in the 21st Century.
    Part of the recent surge in enrollment in career technical 
education is thanks in large part, is to substantial 
investments reforms Congress has made to CTE over the years, 
much of that thanks to this Committee, including most recently 
the passage by legislation Strengthening Career and Technical 
Education in the 21st Century Act.
    In 2018, it was subsequently signed into law by President 
Trump. Mr. Taylor, in your testimony I noted two great examples 
of career and technical education in North Carolina and New 
York. Can you talk more about how these types of programs are 
equipping students with the skills and knowledge they need to 
fill the more than 8 million job openings in the United States 
today?
    Mr. Taylor. Yes, and thank you for this opportunity. Thank 
you also for your support of the legislation around 
cybersecurity and increasing the number of individuals who have 
the skills to help us from a national security standpoint, so 
thank you very much, Mr. Thompson--Congressman Thompson.
    Yes, as specifically mentioned in my comments, and in our 
submitted proposal that there are two programs, one in North 
Carolina, one in New York, one and two, they are all over, but 
they specifically focus--one is on agriscience, and it starts 
in high school, so we do not wait until college to begin 
building this pipeline.
    It is letting these students understand that there is a 
real career in agriculture and agri-business, and there is 
significant investment, so it was very wise--a very wise 
investment on behalf of this Congress, and it is something that 
we think needs to continue to be reinforced. It helps employers 
in the back, and the one thing that I know, I have met with the 
Presidents of John Deere, the Presidents and CEOs of Cargill, 
and what they have all said to us is agri-business is not sexy.
    People do not grow up and say send my kid to go work for an 
agri-business, although it is absolutely a part of America, our 
American economy, and our global dominance. We have said that 
sort of investment is critical, and starting in high school 
through those programs, introduces students who would otherwise 
not know about it, or in the case of African American students, 
who say historically we were pathed toward agri-business jobs, 
and we do not want to go back there.
    It is critical that we say there are huge opportunities 
there for all students, and so that is a great example of a 
program. We also have other programs that focus very early on 
cybersecurity training. Part of the problem when we look at the 
act of diversity--for example, employers who hire, is that the 
pipeline did not provide us kids who were skilled, who were 
even aware of the opportunities in the cybersecurity world.
    Add to it what is going to happen with AI. If we do not get 
this early, we are in big trouble, and for all our efforts to 
want a diverse workforce, we are not going to be able to do it 
because we have not prepared and offered through the pipeline, 
a group of students who are even aware of the possibilities.
    Mr. Thompson. Well, thank you very much. I do think that 
given the fact that career and technical education, including 
agriculture, is so much about innovation and technology today, 
that it is getting sexier, you know. I had not thought about it 
in those terms, but thank you for putting that in my head.
    Dr. Cooper, I am out of time, but I have a question. I will 
forward it to you, it basically is about accountability, and 
national accountability in higher education, and the role of 
states, which I, you know, some states do better than others, 
investing in higher education, and it makes a difference, so 
thank you Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Walberg. I thank the sexy Chairman of Agriculture 
for your questions.
    Mr. Thompson. I knew that was a mistake when I said it, 
actually.
    Chairman Walberg. That is a picture in my mind we will not 
forget. Now I go to the Harley rider from New Jersey, Mr. 
Norcross.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for 
putting together this hearing known as the State of the 
American Education, and congratulations on your first hearing 
as Chairman. What a great topic because it impacts literally 
every one of our lives.
    Many of us talk about education as that pathway to a future 
that we all want. At many times, we do not agree on is what 
education is, and should be, and the discussions say that it is 
absolutely this, or absolutely is that. It is not. It is a 
little bit of each. It is as diverse as we are Americans.
    The idea that one size fits all in education just is not 
the way to go. Quite frankly, you know, we have heard time 
after time that in order to make it in America, you had to go 
to college. Well, you know what? That might be true for certain 
areas of careers. I want my doctor, medical doctor, certainly 
to go to college, and we might even need a couple lawyers.
    I am not sure we need all of them, but I grew up as--I 
raised my son. I was a single father, and it was challenging, 
and that is 46 years ago. I did something that was a little 
unique at the time that goes to part of the discussion here. I 
wanted to make sure that he and my daughter would see that you 
do not have to follow a certain road.
    I became a room mom for a bunch of fourth graders. I will 
tell you 46 years ago they were not real interested in seeing a 
male walk through that door, but for the education of those 
children, I think it was incredibly important, and we have come 
so far since then. Mr. Thompson, hey, I think that work is 
sexy. I will tell you.
    A career in technical education, our education system needs 
to be focused more on what the career--what the job is. I know 
it is great to have one of those pieces of paper up behind you, 
but that is not a job. That is not a career. How we get there 
is really something that is critical.
    I focused a little bit on the earliest years and how do we 
get there. We go through the schools in my district, and quite 
frankly, around the country, we see there are some real 
challenges. Schools are in dilapidated conditions, cyber is 
just a thought if you do not bring it in.
    That is why the Ranking Member, Mr. Scott and I introduced 
a bill called Rebuilding America's Schools Act and invests 130 
billion to go to those districts who need it most. Not 
everybody needs to have the shiny marble hall, but we need the 
basic educational ability to go into a school and do that. When 
we talk about creating opportunities for jobs, when we first 
started vocational schools, and inside regular high schools 
were happening everywhere.
    That fell off the edge, and now they are starting to come 
back because they are finding out--that next generation, to 
work with your hands is a value. Mr. Taylor, I just want to 
touch base with one thing. You mentioned that it starts with 
elementary education. I say it starts with parents.
    Mr. Taylor. Yes.
    Mr. Norcross. They say no matter what, I have a doctor, I 
have a lawyer, and I have an electrician. I value each of them, 
and we as a nation have to value them. Ms. Nelson, can you talk 
about infrastructure in school, and why that is important, the 
basics have to be there?
    Mrs. Nelson. Absolutely. Children should be in facilities 
that enable them to learn. We know that across the country 
there are fundamental inequities in school funding that leads 
to fundamental inequities in infrastructure.
    In the State of Maryland, in Baltimore, for example, we 
have litigated cases that have shown that the school system 
there is suffering from buildings that have leaky ceilings, 
that have, you know, bathrooms that do not function.
    Unfortunately, that is not limited to that State. There is 
the corridor of shame, and the State of South Carolina where 
there are students who receive minimally adequate education, if 
that. This is a chronic issue, and sadly it cleaves along 
racial lines. It is something that we could certainly address 
with a better funding mechanism, and that is something that 
this Congress could take up.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you. Mr. Taylor, what is your view on 
this, and on the infrastructure, particularly in the early 
years?
    Mr. Taylor. I think it is really important, obviously, for 
students to have great facilities, great teachers, et cetera, 
but I do not think the answer is solely throwing more money at 
it. We look at some school districts in this country who are in 
the State of Maryland, for example, who have no funding 
problem. Baltimore is one such example where more money has not 
solved the problem.
    I think we have to be very careful about the idea that we 
can solve all of this by putting more money, and that often 
times there is money, but it is not applied in the ways that 
that will most effectively benefit the children.
    Mr. Norcross. Let us be clear, we are not talking about 
throwing money, we are talking about building infrastructure. 
That is very different than giving a check.
    Mr. Taylor. Often the question, the comment, the argument 
is we need more money, to provide those foundational and 
infrastructural investments. It ultimately comes back to yes, 
there no--there are few people I have seen disagree with the 
fact that children from every neighborhood, not withstanding 
their ZIP code, should go into nice buildings, and have air-
conditioning and heat like others, et cetera.
    That is not for debate, but then if it comes--but we need 
more money to do it, and the only point is we, as employers, 
who will pay into taxes, want to make sure that the investment 
we were making, that it actually yields a return on that 
investment in employers--in employment.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you. As I am looking at my seconds 
going down, this is a great start to conversations.
    Chairman Walberg. Your time has expired.
    Mr. Norcross. Sorry, Congratulations.
    Chairman Walberg. I know electricians. They can keep the 
juice going.
    Mr. Taylor. I am a single dad too, Mr. Norcross, I like 
that.
    Chairman Walberg. Now, it is an opportunity to recognize 
the gentlelady from my birth State of Illinois, Mrs. Miller.
    Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Chairman Walberg, and thank you to 
all of our witnesses for being here today. Mrs. Neily, you 
mentioned that Parents Defending Education has identified more 
than 12 million children in 1,100 school districts across our 
country impacted by parental exclusion policies.
    Our colleagues on the left sometimes argue that we are 
scaremongering to say that parents are being cut out of their 
children's education. Can you explain why this is a very real 
problem, and how parents really do get cut out?
    Mrs. Neily. Representative Miller, as a parent, and as a 
grandparent, you know that we have to sign permission slips to 
give our children aspirin or sunscreen in school. The idea that 
our schools are not offering intrusive mental health counseling 
telling children they are born in the wrong body, that mommy 
and daddy might not love them because of their politics or 
their religion, is something that is so abhorrent that this is 
happening with our tax dollars to our children behind closed 
doors.
    This is happening in 2025 in America. This is not a good 
use of taxpayer dollars. It is destroying the parent child 
relationship, and it is not just LGBT students that are hearing 
this. Last year, or 2 years ago FOX News discovered that 349 
students, or teachers, were arrested for teacher student, for 
child sex crimes, 75 percent of which were with teachers, or 
with their students.
    These are horrifying statistics. We teach our children 
about stranger danger, and so to have our public officials turn 
around and say you should keep secrets from Mom and Dad is 
something that is so devastating to a country, to a nation. 
That is appalling that we are even having this discussion right 
now.
    Mrs. Miller. Mrs. Neily, you mentioned that China has waged 
an influence campaign to get themselves implanted in our K 
through 12 schools. What do we know about how many schools 
China has infiltrated, and what are they teaching in these 
schools?
    Mrs. Neily. We released a report called--into Confucious 
classrooms, called Little Red Classrooms, and we identified 143 
districts around the country, in 34 states, including 20 near 
military bases where Chinese teachers, Chinese materials, 
curriculum had come directly from CCP linked entities.
    The dollar amounts that were coming to these schools were 
very low it is well below the Higher Education Act $250,000 
threshold, but again, receiving curriculum, receiving books, we 
do not actually know what is being taught. For all of our 
friends discussing teaching true history, or in Tiananmen, 
Taiwan, Tibet, Uyghurs genocide.
    Are those covered in these classes? Almost certainly not, 
and so, I think there is a real concern as to who is coming in, 
and what our children have access to behind our backs.
    Mrs. Miller. I do want to challenge the parents in our 
country and taxpayers, to get involved, and find out what is in 
the curriculum in the school districts that they are supporting 
or their children are in. Books are silent teachers.
    To close, I would like to commend President Trump for his 
strong leadership to safeguard and strengthen our Nation's 
education system. Last month he issued an executive order to 
refocus schools on academic excellence, and ensure education 
remains free from political indoctrination.
    On the same day he signed another executive order promoting 
school choice and empowering parents to determine the best 
educational paths for their children. These decisive actions 
affirm the President's commitment to an educational system that 
prioritizes students and parents over government bureaucrats 
and teacher unions. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentlelady, and I recognize 
my faith-filled friend from Georgia, Mrs. McBath.
    Mrs. McBath. Thank you, Chairman Walberg, and Ranking 
Member Scott, and to our witnesses for being with us today. I 
have read your testimoneys. Instead of addressing gun violence 
in our schools, or taking real steps to get a handle on how 
expensive a year of child care, or getting an education has 
become in this country, my Republican colleagues have been 
circulating a 50-page document going over ways that they can 
raise revenue at the expense of American families. Hidden deep 
in the leaked GOP memo is a proposal for a new tax on State and 
Federal scholarships and fellowships, which I would like to 
submit digitally for the record.
    [The information of Mrs. McBath follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mrs. McBath. In my home State of Georgia, students and 
families have come to know and love the HOPE and the Zel Miller 
Scholarships, two programs that will pay for students' full 
yearly in-State tuition if they keep up their grades. I would 
like to make this very, very clear, national Republicans are 
proposing an increase on taxes for students and families in 
Georgia.
    An increase on taxes for families across this country. 
Students in Georgia know that if you work hard in school, the 
State will help you get through college, and start a career, 
but this new tax threatens that promise and undercuts the 
financial security of Georgia's families, of this Nation's 
families.
    Last year, more than 185,000 Georgians received almost a 
billion dollars in scholarships and grants through the HOPE 
Program alone. All of this award money, along with any other 
scholarship that a student earns would now be considered 
taxable income if this proposal by House Republicans were to 
become a law.
    I am a mother. I know how important the HOPE and other 
scholarships are to all the families across this country. I 
unfortunately never got to send my son, Jordan, off to college, 
but we certainly had been planning for it. As a single mom 
working as a flight attendant before I came to Congress, 
figuring out how we were going to pay for it was something that 
I thought about often.
    Every day. I thought about it until the day that he was 
murdered. The HOPE Program was something I knew that Jordan and 
I could rely on, and it would be a gut punch for families who 
also rely on HOPE and other types of financial aid to no longer 
be able to count on these programs without receiving a new tax 
bill. I am horrified at this attempt.
    Families and students in our country deserve better. Ms. 
Nelson, my question is for you. In your testimony, you did talk 
about the importance of student aid. Can you briefly discuss 
the impact that taxing scholarships, grants, and fellowships 
would have on students and families at all income levels?
    Mrs. Nelson. Absolutely, and thank you for also mentioning 
the issue of gun violence. I would be remiss if I did not say 
that there have been over 700 school shootings in the past 
fewer than two decades.
    To your question about taxation of scholarships, not only 
is that concerning because it limits the opportunities to 
achieve higher education, what many who are advocating for so-
called school choice will do with those tax dollars is syphon 
them out of the public education school system, and use them to 
fund private education for just a few.
    Not only is it taking money out of the pockets of people 
who need that funding to pursue higher education. It is then 
funneling that money, potentially, into the pockets of private 
actors who are trying to usurp the public school education 
system.
    Mrs. McBath. Is that something that has become more of a 
problem throughout the nation? It seems increasingly that those 
dollars are going to that very end. I just wanted to say thank 
you for that answer, and I know that I will do everything in my 
power that I can ensure that this proposal never makes it 
beyond this memo.
    I encourage all of my colleagues to fight back against this 
tax increase that will make students' and families' lives 
harder and more expensive back home. I am talking to my 
constituents, and they are scared to death. How are they going 
to be able to afford to send their children to college? Most of 
the students across the Nation, they need help. They need 
financial assistance, and why are we cutting them below the 
knees and preventing them from having what they deserve?
    It is a global and stellar academic education. They have to 
be able to globally compete, and this does not do that. Thank 
you, and I yield back.
    Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentlelady. Now, I recognize 
the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Rulli.
    Mr. Rulli. Thank you, Chairman Walberg. Mrs. Neily, we have 
seen Trump's work to combat DEI in schools. What else could be 
done to address left wing influence in our public-school 
systems?
    Mrs. Neily. Oversight is a tremendously important thing. 
The executive orders are a great first step, but there is a lot 
of work to be done in Congress to put meat on the bones, to 
actually put the regulations in place, and so I think a lot of 
school board members are concerned about how this is going to 
affect them. They have seen that ed tech vendors have dropped 
the use of pronouns, and so people are worried about exposure.
    I think that to the extent that we are able to offer some 
reassurance of how this process will unfold in a clear and 
orderly manner, I think that is important. As we know, these 
activists are willing to die on this hill of dividing students 
along amenable characteristics along race, along sex, along 
things like that.
    It is in the curriculum, it is in programming, it is in 
teacher training materials, and so there really needs to be a 
top to bottom examination, both at the local level, the State 
level, and the Federal level. I know that the Department of 
Education has taken steps to put people on leave.
    I think that needs to extend beyond the Federal Government, 
as well as going down to local activities because there is so 
much money, as Mr. Taylor alluded to in the system, but it is 
not making its way into classrooms. It is not making its way to 
students that need it. It is not making its way into teacher's 
pockets.
    The growth of the administrative State has been appalling 
over the past several years, and a lot of the ESSER money that 
we received, or that we saw doled out under the Biden 
administration, again was used for DEI programming in blue 
states like California and Illinois, and it did not make it 
into addressing the tremendous learning loss that our children 
faced.
    Let us remember, even before the pandemic, American 
education was not in great shape. Our children deserve better. 
We have a lost generation of children right now that deserve an 
actual quality education.
    Mr. Rulli. I cannot agree with you more. I was a school 
board member for 8 years, and the exciting thing I have seen in 
the last 2 years, you know, Ohio is, you know, it is a home 
ruled State, so we like to bring them back to the basics, but 
even when you look at Virginia, if you really want to take the 
school systems back throughout the country, you want to start 
at the school board meetings.
    Normally we know at a school board meeting it is very low 
attended, normally, unless there is something really big and 
controversial going on. No one shows up there, but you know, 
the people have a very big voice within a school board, and 
school board members know we will be responsible for our 
constituents to be re-elected, so your suggestions to parents 
that are concerned with things that their kids tell them that 
are taught in the school, and how they approach that school 
board. Do you have anything for that?
    Mrs. Neily. My organization has guides for parents' 
questions to ask, ways to speak, how to get involved. We are on 
the phone with parents 7 days a week talking them through their 
2-minute comments, making sure they are hitting the high 
points. This is very much a case of the price of liberty is 
eternal vigilance.
    We cannot be everywhere. You cannot be everywhere. The 
Department of Education cannot be everywhere. I think we have 
watched over the past 4 years Americans beginning to re-engage 
their civic engagement muscles, that had frankly atrophied. 
Many people focus on the Federal Government, but where you live 
matters.
    Your backyard matters, your local elected officials matter. 
For people to be able to get involved in that and not be 
shouted down by their school board members, who frankly do not 
want the feedback, but they are not doing a great job, is a 
terrific first start.
    Mr. Rulli. I completely agree. Now, Mrs. Neily, you also 
mentioned that the schools are eliminating gifted and talented, 
and even I mean I am even hearing AP classes. Is this in the 
name of DEI? Why is this an awful decision in your opinion for 
the students?
    Mrs. Neily. Yes, unfortunately we are watching what is 
called de-tracking, multi-level classes are now considered a 
bad thing because some districts feel that the wrong races, or 
the wrong kinds of students are in these classes, and so the 
solution then is frankly ripped out of Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison 
Bergeron, it is bring down the best performers so that everyone 
is frankly, equally a low performer.
    My daughter is in a gifted program, and she gets bored when 
she is not challenged. I think we want as a country, to 
encourage students to excel, to work hard. These are virtues 
that made America the envy of the world, and so why we would 
turn those aside and say no, no, no, that is privilege, no, 
that is white supremacy, is something that is such a slap in 
the face.
    My grandparents met in an internment camp, and they were 
able to pull themselves up out of poverty after they got out of 
the camps. To deny other people, or for teachers and 
administrators to tell people because of your skin color you 
cannot achieve, or you cannot do better, the country is 
systemically racist is a real insult.
    You know, students lack the basic skills to succeed in a 
global economy, and so we should try to bring up the low 
performers but also celebrate the high performers.
    Mr. Rulli. Okay. I completely agree, again. I think AP 
classes maybe could be what unites both sides of the aisle to 
get back to where we get our kids as to eye of the prize, so 
thank you so much, Mrs. Neily, and with that I yield my time 
back to the Chair, thank you.
    Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. I recognize the 
educator for Connecticut, Ms. Hayes.
    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you, and thank you to all our witnesses 
for testifying. I do not know who hurt you, or what teachers 
your children have been exposed to, but that is--none of this 
has ever been a part of my experience. This week the Washington 
Post reported that the administration is preparing an executive 
order to abolish the Department of Education.
    President Trump has long promised to abolish the 
Department, and Elon Musk has reiterated these proposed goals 
on his social media platforms. Since its creation in 1979, the 
Department of Education has been committed to ensuring high 
quality education for children across the country.
    As the Chairman noted, there are about one million children 
who participate in private school choice programs, but 49.6 
million children participate in public school education. What 
about them? Who is advocating for them? There are not enough 
slots in charter school programs for all 49 million of those 
children.
    The Department protects the civil rights of students, 
supports students from low-income backgrounds, develops and 
prepares educators, provides resources for English learners, 
and is responsible for 1.6 trillion dollars in Federal loan 
programs. In addition, the Department runs the National 
Assessment of Educational Progress, and collects statistics on 
enrollment, staffing, and crime in school.
    The Individuals with Disabilities Acts, makes free and 
appropriate public education available to eligible children 
with disabilities. In the 2022 and 2023 school years, 7.5 
million students received special education, or related 
services through IDEA or the equivalent of 15 percent of all 
public school students.
    Shutting down the Department of Education would profoundly 
impact Title I schools. It is telling that none of the 
witnesses on this panel could say affirmatively yes, that the 
Department should be shut down because you know that the answer 
is no.
    The Department administers 18.4 billion in Title I program 
funding to low-income K-12 schools. Also, as I mentioned, the 
Department runs 1.6 trillion in student loan programs, one of 
its largest missions. Mr. Cooper, in your opening you talked a 
lot about the cost of college.
    I think that the conversation we should be having is how do 
we lower the cost of education, not discourage it. While many 
of you have a very short memory, I chose to go to college 
because my grandmother could not. There were laws prohibiting 
it.
    While you throw around and weaponize words like diversity, 
equity and inclusion, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund did not come 
into play in these conversations as a nice gesture. It was to 
push back on laws that prohibited people like my grandmother 
from pursuing higher education.
    While you are correct, Mr. Taylor, we need to prepare the 
next generation workforce, as we know in an industrialized 
nation, that is not just going to be people who work in 
factories. That is going to be the doctors and the lawyers, and 
the teachers, and the social workers, and the community 
leaders, the engineers, which all require college degrees.
    What we should be doing is trying to make every opportunity 
available to every student that wants it, no matter what that 
opportunity is. Ms. Nelson, can you talk a little bit about 
what would happen to the 7.5 million children who receive 
services related to IDEA from the Department of Education, and 
need for us to be advocating for them.
    What would happen to them if the Department is dismantled?
    Mrs. Nelson. Well, I am glad that you mentioned the number 
of Federal statutes that the Department of Education is 
responsible for enforcing, along with the Department of 
Justice. Children who need IEPs, individual education plans, 
because they learn differently, because they have challenges in 
different ways would be bereft of any Federal support without 
the Department of Education.
    They would have to rely on State and local governments that 
are often underfunded and often do not have the expertise to 
enforce Federal law. The Department of Education is an absolute 
necessity to the survival and thriving of this Nation's 
students, and especially those who are more challenged.
    Mrs. Hayes. Have you seen a push for all of these voucher 
programs and private charter school programs--a push to attract 
those students?
    Mrs. Nelson. No. That is the problem.
    Mrs. Hayes. I have not either.
    Mrs. Nelson. That is the problem. That is the problem with 
these private schools being funded with public tax dollars. 
Private schools are not required to accept all students. They 
often reject students who have learning disabilities, or who 
somehow do not fit the mold of a private school child.
    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you, my time has expired. I yield back.
    Chairman Walberg. Thank the gentlelady, and I recognize the 
gentleman from Missouri, a new member of the Committee, glad to 
have you on it, Mr. Onder.
    Mr. Onder. Thank you, Chairman Walberg, and thank you to 
the witnesses for appearing here today. In the United States, 
today we are faced with a cruel irony that regarding K to 12 
education over the last decade, and this trend does go back 
much further.
    We have spent more and more on education, public education 
and gotten worse and worse outcomes. I spent a decade in the 
Missouri General Assembly, 8 years of that on the Senate 
Education Committee. Over and over again, lobbyists for the 
school administrators, the school board association, the 
teachers' unions, came to our Committee, and they had one 
message, give us more money.
    Give us more money. In Missouri, and these are national 
statistics, indeed we have been giving public education more 
money. We are up to now about almost 16,000 per student K to 
12. At the same time here are NAEP Scores, of which the most 
recent data came last week.
    These are plummeting. They plummeted worse after COVID. I 
would say not after COVID, after the government response to 
COVID, which was very dysfunctional and very harmful.
    We had this irony that we are spending more, and we are 
getting less in the way of favorable outcomes. At the same 
time, we have--what are we spending the money on? Well, here--
here is a graph of the growth. In blue and the green are the 
growth of students and teachers, about 8 percent both, almost 
identical.
    37 percent growth in principals and assistant principals, 
and 88 percent growth in other administrators. By the way, the 
teachers make on average $70,000 a year, actually a little less 
in Missouri, unfortunately. The administrators on average make 
$103,000 a year.
    This is where our money is going. This is where our money 
is going. We are taking our eye off the ball, and not focusing 
on what really matters, which is these teachers teaching these 
students how to read and write, and do math. What is worse is 
we are getting our eye off the ball in other ways.
    Instead of teaching, reading and writing and math, not what 
to think, but how to think. Instead, you know, Mrs. Neily, we 
are spending time doing things like well, running urgent care 
centers in schools, and all the wrap around services, whatever. 
If we cannot teach kids how to read, what are we doing running 
pediatrics offices and urgent care clinics?
    Even worse yet, we are indoctrinating these kids with 
pernicious ideologies. Kids are learning about the 15 latest 
genders but not how to do multiplication, division and all. 
Mrs. Neily, just I believe, by the way, I believe that the 
Federal Government is playing a very negative role in all of 
this. The Federal Government is only providing 11 percent of 
the funding but driving this administrative bloat.
    What can we--and I believe abolishing the Department of 
Education is definitely a big part of the solution. There are 
some good functions in the Department of Education, IEPs, and 
so on, but they could be spun off. Mrs. Neily, how could we get 
back on the focus of how--of educating kids, rather than 
indoctrination and, you know, bloating our school 
bureaucracies?
    Mrs. Neily. Unfortunately, I think a fish rots from the 
head. President Biden had a day one executive order injecting 
equity into everything, and we saw that play out in the form of 
grants, in the form of other things. As you know, he who pays 
the piper calls the tune.
    Every Federal dollar that goes out the door has strings 
attached to it where they know that they have to prioritize 
equity over student excellence. Let us think back to the NEA's 
annual meeting several years ago where the General Assembly 
vote did not vote through to focus on student excellence, but 
they do learn things like abortion, foreign policy, and things 
like that.
    We have teachers union leaders that have sold off their 
members, prioritizing things like restorative justice over 
actually educating children, keeping teachers safe. Teachers 
right now have taken on such a large load. They are an 
emotional support animal. They are a generous support 
transition counselor.
    That is like a $250,000 a year job, that is not a $50,000 a 
year job.
    Mr. Onder. Right.
    Mrs. Neily. Our teachers deserve better, and I think they 
want to get back to the basics because that is what they were 
hired for.
    Mr. Onder. You know and when I talk to teachers in my 
district, and I am a physician. When I have talked to my 
patients who are teachers, they do not want to do any of that. 
A great majority of them do not. Some are idealogues, but the 
great majority do not.
    They are doing it because as you say, the Federal 
Government is driving this train, they are paying the piper, 
they are calling the tune. Thank you for your testimony. I 
yield back.
    Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman, and now I 
recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Mannion, welcome.
    Mr. Mannion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you Ranking Member 
Scott, and thank you to the witnesses that are joining us here 
today. I was a former teacher of almost 30 years. I taught 
science, physics, astronomy, geology, chemistry, AP biology, 15 
to 1 living environment. I worked directly with students, 
families, and other teachers.
    Education is the great equalizer. It is also the great 
stabilizer, and our public schools are the cores of our 
community. I was also the founding Chairman of the New York 
State Senate Committee on Disabilities. I am also a parent. I 
understand how critical it is to make sure that our schools are 
well funded, that our students have all the resources they need 
to be successful, and that our teachers are supported, and have 
that as well.
    In the New York 22d congressional District, it is the home 
to great public schools that are supported by our communities. 
Families choose to move to my district because of our fantastic 
schools. Between my wife and I, we spent nearly 60 years in a 
classroom, and we spent those years in both private, public, 
urban, suburban and other settings.
    I have seen the disparities that exist between our own 
public schools, and the inequities that impact the chances of 
students meeting the great American dream, and having that 
great equalizer of public education. I am glad that we are 
having this conversation today because there are areas of 
education that do need improvement, but some of the things that 
I have heard today have nothing to do with what is happening in 
the classrooms.
    I encourage, as the previous Congressman mentioned, that 
you have conversations with your teachers, with your friends 
that are teachers, with your family members that are teachers 
that you trust. Also, as a New York State Legislator, I was 
proud to support record funding for our schools as they are 
performing more necessary functions for our communities, and we 
are asking teachers, social workers, and school psychologists, 
to do more than they ever had before.
    As the cores of our community, they have the ability to do 
so and have. I have also increased expansion of universal pre-K 
into various areas of the State. I more than doubled 
apprenticeship funding, so that people can change careers at 
whatever point in their lifetimes, including in their secondary 
education setting, and that has transformed lives.
    My question is for Ms. Neily. I started teaching in 1993. 
Since that time, we have increased the number of parent teacher 
organizations specializing in things like special education 
PTOs. We also have an increased number of meet-the-teacher 
nights. We live stream school board meetings. We have websites 
that have access to syllabi, curriculum.
    We have easy access to teachers with emails and phone 
calls. Beyond all that, we also have students in classrooms 
with cell phones that are audiotaping, videotaping, or 
livestreaming instruction in those classes. My question is yes 
or no question. Do you believe over the course of the last 
generation that parents have less access and input into 
education?
    Mrs. Neily. Yes, I do.
    Mr. Mannion. I would argue that my experience and my wife's 
experience in a classroom, and my experience as a parent, your 
comment is highly subjective, and inaccurate.
    Mrs. Neily. Thousands of parents around this country would 
love to have access that your district does. I have talked to 
hundreds of parents around the country who have to file public 
records requests on a regular basis to have access to those 
curriculum, to have access to lesson plans.
    I myself, through my organization, have paid approximately 
$100,000 over the past 4 years to gain access to emails, lesson 
plans and things like that. I know how to fight, but most 
average parents do not know how to. When they do ask questions, 
when they show up at a school board, they are shouted down, 
they are called names.
    They are doxed by their colleagues and by members of the 
school board.
    Mr. Mannion. Thank you, Ms. Neily. I believe what you are 
referring to are very outlying instances.
    Mrs. Neily. I believe you are----
    Mr. Mannion. In New York we have over a half a million 
students that are identified as students with disabilities. I 
participated in CSE meetings, and both sides of that table. 
Parents understand that it is necessary to continue the 
Department of Education, and that these students receive a fair 
and appropriate public education.
    Do you believe that fulfilling our Federal requirements for 
our students with disabilities is a distraction, as you have 
stated in the past?
    Mr. Owens [presiding]. Excuse me, your time has expired.
    Mr. Mannion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Owens. Thank you, thank you so much. I would like to 
now--Mr. Harris, North Carolina.
    Mr. Harris. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to all 
of our witnesses, thank you all for your participation today in 
this hearing, and I have had the opportunity to review your 
testimoneys. Ms. Neily, I was taken in your testimony that you 
mentioned the threat of foreign adversaries posed to our 
students.
    We know from reports, from watchdog organizations like 
yours, that foreign funding is an issue at the K through 12 
level, and in higher education.
    Calls of the lack of accountability and transparency, this 
is likely just the tip of the iceberg of what we know. For 
example, this Committee worked with the Select Committee on the 
CCP and found that nearly two dozen universities across the 
country had specialized joint research partnerships with China 
involving sensitive military technology.
    I am particularly shocked by the lack of caution our 
schools have when partnering with our greatest foreign 
adversaries, such as the Chinese Communist Party. In fact, all 
of this led me to introduce the No Contracts with Foreign 
Adversaries Act, which would begin to tackle this problem at 
the collegiate level by requiring institutions to disclose 
contracts with China, North Korea, Russia and Iran.
    My question to you, Mrs. Neily, is can you just elaborate 
what harm does the take money first and ask questions later 
approach have for our students, as well as for our national 
security?
    Mrs. Neily. Unfortunately, I think most school districts 
are not aware of the threat that is posed. In Fairfax, the 
Thomas Jefferson School for Science and Technology, formally 
America's No. 1 Magnet School partnered with the Tsinghua 
University High School, which is that partners with Tsinghua 
University, a Chinese military school that is supervised by the 
Chinese defense industry, according to the Australian security 
policy studies.
    The Simpson County Board of Education in Kentucky entered 
into an agreement with the North China Electric Power 
University, which works directly with the Chinese government's 
energy sector to push China's global energy initiatives as part 
of its belt and road initiative.
    These are things that local school boards and school 
districts are not aware of whatsoever. Often times this is 
secure or classified information that these kinds of things are 
taking place. For us to open our doors, and open our data bases 
to these foreign adversaries, is something that I think is 
appalling, and that really needs Federal intervention, so thank 
you for your work.
    Mr. Harris. Well, and thank you for your work, and for 
again, bringing this information forward because I think it is 
going to be absolutely critical in protecting our national 
security as well as our students going forward.
    Switching gears just a little bit, in the public school 
system, Ms. Neily, and this again is to you, who currently has 
more influence over a child's intellectual development, parents 
or bureaucrats?
    Mrs. Neily. Unfortunately, it seems to be bureaucrats at 
this moment in time. When you have school officials that are 
telling children that their parents love is conditional, but 
their parents might not love them because of their religion, or 
their politics, that really throws up a wall that unfortunately 
is going to create lasting damage, much beyond a child's 
graduation from high school.
    What parents often I talk to them, and they say they have 
to de-program their kids from what happens in school. There is 
both the pressure of trying to conform to and please an 
authority figure, like a teacher or a principal, as well as the 
peer pressure because everyone else around them is also getting 
inculcated with the same materials.
    Mr. Harris. Well, I think--and as a followup to that I 
think your point is well taken, is the Federal system of 
supporting education really structured to empower parents, or 
is it set up more to empower school systems themselves?
    Mrs. Neily. Right. I mean I think, you know, looking at the 
influence that the teachers' union leadership has had over the 
Federal Government over the past several years is something 
that I know is likely to taper off over the next coming years, 
and I think American families are excited about that.
    Mr. Harris. Well, and I would like to give a moment just to 
discuss any examples you have seen of parental rights being 
trampled on at the expense of the woke gender movement that I 
think all of us in the country have been aware of.
    Mrs. Neily. I think in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, they had a 
sign up, and they also have teacher training materials that 
said, you know, the right to know a child's gender identity is 
something that must be earned. I mean the idea that I have to 
earn information about my child is something that is appalling.
    We have watched districts weaponize FERPA, the Federal 
Education Rights and Privacy Act, saying that children have a 
right to privacy from their parents. That was not the original 
intent of the law, and to watch local officials take and 
bastardize something that was intended to be both a sword and a 
shield for families, is something again that is a deep slap in 
the face.
    There are Federal statutes in place. The PPRA where that 
governs the amount of information of what can be, what 
questions districts can collect from students. Often times 
school officials do not even know that there are things where 
if they are asking students about sexuality, about drug use, 
about politics, that they have to notify parents and give 
families an opportunity to opt out.
    That is because school officials are not learning what 
their obligations are under the law, when they learn from their 
school associations, and they learn from the superintendent 
association, the principal's association, they are learning 
about woke topics instead of learning about their actual 
responsibilities.
    Mr. Harris. Well, thank you so much, and I would say, I 
mean you have been a wealth of information this morning, and 
all of you on the panel. We appreciate again, your service, and 
the information that you have made us aware of today. Mr. 
Chairman, I yield back my time.
    Mr. Owens. Thank you. I would now like to recognize my 
friend from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the 
witnesses. I am not going to sit in this hearing today and 
pretend that everything is normal because it is not. We are 
barely 2 weeks into the new administration. We have already 
seen extreme attacks on public education straight out of the 
Project 2025 playbook.
    Here is a reminder. Members of Congress swear to support 
and defend the United States Constitution. No member of either 
party should stay silent as the Trump administration and Elon 
Musk take unconstitutional and illegal actions to withhold 
appropriated funding, or to violate our constitutional 
separation of powers.
    I know that Democrats, and hopefully some Republicans, 
because we have seen that over the years, will stand against 
attempts to weaken or dismantle our system of public education, 
or divert Federal dollars from public schools to private 
educational institutions that are only available to a few, and 
generally not accountable for their students' safety and 
success.
    Yesterday, I was proud to introduce House Resolution 94 
with more than 60 of my colleagues in defense of public 
education and in defense of the civil rights protections 
provided to students under the authority of the U.S. Department 
of Education, an authority that is granted by Congress.
    I have to say I am pretty disappointed that the Chair of 
this Committee said yesterday that he would support efforts to 
depower the Department of Education. We are all here to, I 
would hope, do what is best for the students in this country.
    Ms. Nelson, you testified that voucher programs and the 
lack of the kind of public school accountability and 
transparency that is required of public schools, do they 
obscure whether taxpayer dollars are effectively spent and 
whether students receive the support they need?
    That was in your testimony. You also testified that 
divestment from public education in favor of privatized 
education will exacerbate the kind of transparency and 
accountability that is in the public system. I also want to 
note that I represent a lot of rural communities. I represent 
urban communities as well, and in rural communities, they do 
not want their public education dollars taken away and say 
here, we are taking away your public education dollars, here is 
a voucher.
    There is no place to use it because there is no place even 
close by to use a voucher. What are the challenges with holding 
private schools accountable? Do we know how students are doing 
in these schools?
    Mrs. Nelson. Yes, and thank you for naming the elephant in 
the room, the elephant in this country, and that is what is 
basically a grand larceny of our entire Federal Government, 
while we stand by and watch folks in this room attempt to 
pickpocket public education.
    You talk about transparency and accountability, and I have 
heard that mentioned by some of the witnesses on this panel. If 
we are serious about those two concepts, we know that private 
education does not have the same oversight that public 
education does. It certainly would not have sufficient 
oversight if we were to dismantle the Department of Education.
    Private schools operate under the radar. We do not get to 
collect the same data and information that we do in public 
schools, so the idea that we are necessarily giving children a 
better education in private school is anecdote. It is not 
clear.
    Ms. Bonamici. I do not mean to interrupt.
    Mrs. Nelson. Sure.
    Ms. Bonamici. I want to get through my questions. What 
happens if parents take one of these vouchers and then go to a 
private school, and they discover that gosh, this is not 
everything they promised, is there any recourse for them?
    Mrs. Nelson. Well, they can try to return to a public 
school, but if we were to take this to its full logical 
conclusion, and parents are shopping children around to 
different private schools, we know that the infrastructure of 
public schools in the public school system will significantly 
deteriorate.
    Ms. Bonamici. I appreciate that, and I wish I had 5 hours 
to dispel some of the myths that I have heard here today, but I 
want to ask you about this so-called parent's rights campaign.
    Mrs. Nelson. Yes.
    Ms. Bonamici. That calls for narrow minded book bans and 
revision of curricula. Now, everybody in this Committee knows, 
because it is the law, that the Federal Government does not 
have dictate curriculum. A lot of the issues I have heard 
discussed here today are local issues.
    Recent efforts, including the so-called parents bill of 
rights that actually moved through the House last Congress, 
have been written in ways that could really harm vital mental 
health support for students, and behavioral healthcare, the 
need for behavioral healthcare, is something I hear about 
constantly.
    In fact, the National Association of School Psychologists 
indicated that the bill would ``undoubtedly exacerbate the 
youth mental health crisis and undermine efforts to improve 
school safety.'' I hope we all care about school safety, and if 
we really cared about school safety, we would do something 
about gun violence.
    How would this Republican parent's bills of rights, and the 
dismantling of the Department of Education affect resources and 
policies that foster a safe and healthy school climate, and how 
would students, schools, and communities be harmed?
    Mrs. Nelson. Well, children need additional supports. Of 
course, we all agree that children should receive basic 
education. They should leave school with skills. They should 
learn reading, math and everything else, but they also require 
additional supports as any parent knows, as I know, as a 
parent.
    Students are not just what they learn in the textbook. They 
are nurtured by their teachers, they are nurtured by their 
environments, and they deserve the types of investments that 
will enable them to succeed. What we have heard a lot today is 
a lot of anecdotal conspiracy rhetoric about what is happening 
in schools.
    As a proud product of the public school system, and a proud 
parent of children who have attended public schools, I have 
seen nothing of the sort of what is been alleged today.
    Ms. Bonamici. The same. I spent years as a very involved 
public-school parent, and I have to say that children do not 
learn when they are hungry, or when they are sick, so the 
thought of withdrawing support for students is not appropriate, 
is baffling. I yield back.
    Mr. Owens. Thank you. I would like to now recognize my 
friend from Indiana, Mr. Messmer.
    Mr. Messmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Taylor, 
apprenticeships are a proven model, paid, on the job training 
with related technical instruction to educate workers for 
career success. Despite the growth over the past decade, 
registered apprentices only make up about three-tenths of a 
percent of the workforce.
    What are the greatest barriers to broader adoption of 
apprenticeships from an employer standpoint, and what are some 
of the challenges in engaging students to pursue those 
apprenticeships?
    Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Messmer. We--so, we are huge, 
huge supporters of apprenticeships. From SHRM's standpoint, we 
need them again, to address the worker shortage, and more 
importantly the skilled worker shortage. The earlier that we 
can allow people, for example, who do have college degrees to 
gain experience while in college often through registered 
apprenticeships, we are increasing that pipeline of highly 
qualified workers.
    The barriers are one, the word apprenticeship suggests, 
especially when you speak to people coming out of higher ed, 
that it is not quite, you know, you do not need an 
apprenticeship. I am a lawyer for example, and my 
apprenticeship was considered a summer associateship. It is the 
way we talk about it that has made it less attractive to 
students, and so they do not rush to that because they assume 
that apprenticeship is tied to me becoming a welder, which is a 
very good job, and they pay more than that lawyer, who 
graduated from law school.
    At the end of the day, we have to work on what has been a 
stigmatization of that word apprentice. That is a barrier. Then 
second, and significantly for historically underrepresented 
communities, oftentimes these apprenticeships are unpaid.
    I have got to tell you as much as one wants to get 
experiential treatment, if you do not--if you have to choose 
between, and oftentimes children--I was one of those children, 
who had to spend the summer making money to pay for school for 
the next year. If I had the choice--had to make the tough 
choice between an unpaid apprenticeship and working a job that 
did not necessarily give me skills that would prepare me to be 
a better lawyer, but one was unpaid. That is a problem.
    To the extent this Congress can help us fund those 
apprenticeships, those are the two significant barriers that we 
see. By the way, it is not limited to historically 
underrepresented groups, there are a number of majority members 
who come from places like West Virginia, where they may be 
financially challenged, and they cannot participate in 
apprenticeship programs because of funding.
    Mr. Messner. Thank you. Mrs. Neily, tomorrow I will 
introduce the Instruct Act, which will require intelligence 
agencies to boost their inner agency coordination on foreign 
harm influence in our schools, along with retroactively share 
all past reports on the topic across departments. In your 
opinion, do you view this legislation as a step in the right 
direction?
    Mrs. Neily. I think absolutely it is a step in the right 
direction. Schools collect such a vast amount of data about 
children on a regular basis, and frankly, it is not secured 
very well. We all hear on a regular basis about schools being 
hacked, data being held by ransomware.
    What is going to happen when that--with the information 
about either military families, or just average families, is 
held by a hostile, foreign power that seeks to exploit us. I 
think it is terrifying, and I think your bill is a step in the 
right direction.
    Mr. Messmer. Thank you. Does accepting money from foreign 
sources lead to education system being beholden to the values 
and influences that do not share American values?
    Mrs. Neily. Absolutely. We do not know who is writing the 
books. I think for parents to actually know that information 
means that they can make an informed decision whether they want 
their child to enroll in a Mandarin course taught by a 
Communist Party official, or if maybe they want to take a 
Spanish course instead.
    Parents deserve the right to make that decision, with 
complete information, which as of this moment in time they 
currently do not have.
    Mr. Messmer. Thank you. In my home State, school choice 
programs have shown to statistically benefit minority 
populations at a much higher ratio than the rest of the 
population. Mrs. Nelson, can you validate with statistical 
data, rather than anecdotal claims that school choice programs 
penalize minority students?
    Mrs. Nelson. Certainly. I am so glad that you raised your 
State of Indiana where more than a quarter of the students, who 
are required to repeat grades in your State are black, and 
nearly a tenth are Latino. I will tell you that school 
vouchers, in many of the programs that we are aware of, have 
actually decreased the learning of the students who have those 
vouchers.
    It has not improved their educational outcomes. It has left 
them----
    Mr. Messmer. You can provide a statistical data to show 
that?
    Mrs. Nelson. I can, I can provide statistical data.
    Mr. Messmer. Well, that is a little contrary to what we 
have seen in our State, so.
    Mrs. Nelson. Well, I am happy to share what our studies 
have shown, and in fact, if we look at the State of South 
Carolina, I will give you that example, where the Supreme Court 
of the State of South Carolina just last November in a court 
case held that their voucher program contradicted the State 
Constitution, and was unconstitutional because it drained 
resources from the public school system.
    There are significant concerns, not only about the 
educational value when you use school vouchers, but also what 
it does to destroy the public school system for the rest of the 
children, the vast majority of children who are left without 
vouchers and are in the public school system.
    We do not just want to focus on those who have vouchers. We 
want to focus on the majority of students in this country, the 
nearly 50 million who do not have vouchers to shop around and 
try to find a better education.
    Mr. Messmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Owens. Thank you. I would like to now recognize from 
Pennsylvania, Ms. Lee.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am glad that we are having 
this hearing today because I do strongly agree that the State 
in America, excuse me, the State of education in America, 
should be a concern for all of us. I think that perhaps I 
disagree on what are the most serious threats. I disagree on 
the seriousness of the assertion that those most serious 
threats are things such as woke ideology, or radical 
indoctrination, or the fact that you know, LGBTQ+ people exist.
    I, however, do believe that among the most serious threats 
are the active and deliberate dismantling of public education. 
Republicans focus on demonizing our most marginalized students 
to distract from the fact that they have no intention, or we of 
course, have simply not heard of any intention to actually 
improve the State of education.
    Throughout not just this hearing, but in general around 
this topic, we hear a lot of buzz words, such as school choice, 
our parents' rights, our education freedom, our indoctrination, 
our Federal overreach, and that is by no coincidence.
    These are talking points that we saw, were core tenets of 
Project 2025. In this plan conservatives outlined how they 
would dismantle the Department of Education, gut public 
education, strip away civil rights protections, and impose an 
extremely ideological agenda on our schools.
    Right now, the President is reportedly preparing an 
executive order to bypass Congress and illegally impound funds 
within the Department of Education, a first step toward 
dismantling the agency altogether.
    The President has promised to attack these institutions, 
and he is doing that. Let us be clear about what these policies 
really mean because we have seen them before. These are the 
same arguments that were used to resist desegregation, to 
justify pulling public dollars out of integrated schools and 
pouring them into segregated academies, and to privatize or 
prioritize incarceration over the education of black and brown 
students.
    The language has changed, but the goals seem to remain the 
same. Attorney Nelson, when we hear conservatives pushing for 
parental rights and claim to be fighting against 
indoctrination, what do you see are the natural consequences of 
these efforts. What influence do you think it has on our 
students' curricula, or the learning environment for the 
students or the teachers?
    Mrs. Nelson. Yes. We absolutely believe that parents should 
be involved in children's education. This is not a new concept. 
If you talk to any teacher, any teacher would welcome parents 
to engage. What we do not want is parents to try to override 
the expertise of teachers who we have hired because they are 
specialized in teaching and training students about what should 
be in the curricula, about what should be in terms of our 
national standards, right?
    Federal laws that have been passed, that have been informed 
by experts' research, and other data, not the anecdotes that 
people want to bring to advance their own political ideology. 
Inviting extremist groups like Moms for Liberty to determine 
what the curricula of this country would be, would be 
absolutely disastrous.
    They would be pedaling an indoctrination by ignorance. 
Indoctrination by deprivation of knowledge, and that certainly 
does not allow us to be a competitive country and does not 
serve all of our children to succeed.
    Ms. Lee. Yes. Very quickly, do you believe that dismantling 
the Department of Education would help us fulfill the promises 
of Brown?
    Mrs. Nelson. Absolutely not. It would be counter to the 
very promise of Brown. The Department of Education began 
because we recognized the need for there to be national 
standards and national oversight of our public education 
system, and for there to be a Federal apparatus to enforce our 
Federal civil rights laws as they pertain to education, and 
other laws.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you. How do you think, if at all, do these 
conservative policies or proposals make our students more 
competitive, improve the global standing of the United States, 
or prepare our students to enter emerging careers, or ensure 
that our students will be prepared to address the significant 
challenges on the horizons?
    Ms. Nelson. No. To the extent that these conservative 
policies attack diversity, equity and inclusion, basic 
principles of fairness. Those are America last policies. Those 
are not policies that will advance our students to become 
competitive in an increasingly global marketplace, in an 
increasingly global economy.
    We should be leveraging our diversity. It is our greatest 
strength. We should be leveraging multi-linguicism. Instead, we 
are trying to find ways to really narrow the focus of our 
education and to replace it with conservative, extremist 
ideology.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you. While the most harm, per usual, will be 
black and brown students, students with disabilities, and other 
marginalized students, we will all pay the price as Attorney 
Nelson just said. While our commitment to racism may be 
lucrative for the billionaires running the administration right 
now, the rest of this Nation will learn that we will all sink 
or swim together.
    The outcomes in this investment reserved or accepted for 
black students will be reflected in our global State in tech 
and innovation. While other nations invest in all of their 
students to increase their global competitiveness, racism in 
our public schools will serve as an anchor for ours. I thank 
you and the panel, and I yield back.
    Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentlelady, and I recognize 
the Vice-Chairman of our Committee, Mr. Owens from Utah.
    Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, this is 
such an important hearing, the State of our education. One of 
the most important conversations we are going to have about our 
most important national resource, our children. It has been 
interesting. First of all, we can all agree, based on recent 
results, that our present educational system is failing our 
children miserably.
    We pay more per child than any other industrialized country 
except Luxembourg, and yet 60 percent, this is not anecdotal, 
60 percent of our fourth graders, 70 percent, this is not 
anecdotal, of our eighth graders are failing, based on the NAEP 
reading and math proficiency scores.
    We are paying more per student with a lower rate of return 
on investment, 70 percent failure rate, and we can no longer do 
this. I will be honest with you. I would be a little bit more 
accepting as a stakeholder in the NAACP if they were not silent 
when 75 percent of our black boys were found in 2017 not to be 
able to read and write in the State of California.
    We have here in Baltimore, zero proficiency in math for 
many of our students. We have black mothers and fathers lining 
up to get into a choice, a voucher program because they are 
living in a ZIP Code, the kids cannot get educated. We have the 
audacity to say we are experts at education. The parents are 
ignorant, and yet we have this remarkably failing system.
    The answer has been so far let us put more money into it. 
You know, I have been hearing this for 40 years. We cannot 
disturb--we cannot mess up this system because institutions 
because our kids--we cannot take our kids out because that 
institution will fail.
    Well, when we have this kind of failure, we need to make 
sure our kids are focused in that direction. We need correction 
through innovation, merit through every piece of the pipeline, 
and when we do that is have this conversation about giving our 
parents a choice.
    Ms. Neily, I want to say thank you. It is good to see you 
again, and I thank you, the support you have for thousands upon 
thousands of parents across this country that are not really 
respected in this body here. You are the stakeholders. As a 
parent, I know what is best for my kid, and I would think 
everybody in this room would feel the same way.
    You would do everything you could to get your child out of 
a failing school system. Well, we need to start looking at 
other people's children the way we look at ours. Ms. Neily, in 
your testimony you mentioned the school district has paid DEI 
consultants millions of dollars. Can you explain to us exactly 
how those DEI consultants have been--what they were paid for?
    Mrs. Neily. Sure. In 2021, we released what we called our 
consultant report card. We identified over 100 consultants with 
hundreds of contracts in dozens of districts across the 
country, making money hand over fist. Encouraging districts to 
do things like privilege walks, privilege bingo, things that 
are not helping children, but are actively hurting them.
    A study by the Network Contagion Research Institute showed 
that DEI programming, surprise, surprise, leads to more 
divisions in interpersonal relationships. When we see districts 
spend money on this, it actually might have been better use 
literally lighting in a fire, because at least then children 
would be warm instead of hating each other.
    Mr. Owens. Dr. Cooper, critics of the market based and 
accountability mechanisms, such as risk sharing and performance 
funding, often argue that they would punish the open access 
institutions, or deter colleges from enrolling low-income 
students, who have a lower likelihood of success.
    However, these critics do not seem to fit your testimony as 
it relates to accountability systems, proposed under the 
College Cost Reduction Act. What did you find in your analysis 
of the bill's accountability system, and do you believe the 
schools would ultimately reduce the share of low income and 
disadvantaged students they enrolled as a result?
    Mr. Cooper. My analysis of the College Cost Reduction Act, 
excuse me, found the exact opposite of what the critics allege. 
We find that open access institutions, community colleges, 
regional public 4 years would actually benefit from the College 
Cost Reduction Act because the CCRA rewards schools for 
enrolling low-income students, and also serving them well, 
getting them through, making sure they graduate, making sure 
that they have good earnings after graduation, and that they 
are keeping their prices to a reasonable level.
    Mr. Owens. Okay. Thank you. I have a question, Mr. Taylor. 
I am going to have done in writing and sent to you. I will just 
say this. I grew up at a time where education was our gateway, 
segregated community. We led our country because parents and 
teachers understood their responsibility to their kids, that 
our country grows middle class.
    Men entering college. Men committed to marriage, percentage 
of entrepreneurs in a segregated black community because 
education was put in place to help our kids, not this 
institution. We are going to change that, and for those who do 
not get it yet, let me suggest you go out and talk to some 
parents who really are stuck in these areas that they cannot 
get out of.
    As a matter of fact, I will take it further. How about 
taking your kids, and letting them go into these failing 
schools, and just see how cool it is to have all this other 
stuff going on, and reading, and writing and understanding math 
is not a priority. We are going to make this change. I am 
excited about the process. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues across the aisle. Kids should come first. That is 
our top priority. Thank you, and I will yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman and recognize the 
passion that allows you to wear a Super Bowl ring. Who should I 
bet on? No, we will not. I now recognize the gentleman from 
Texas, a new member of our Committee, glad to have you on it, 
welcome Mr. Casar.
    Mr. Casar. Thank you, Chairman. Today, we have heard from 
House Republicans on this Committee, support for Trump and 
Musk's plan to abolish the Department of Education, to slash 
critical programs that help students like Title I, Pell grants, 
financial aid, and programs that help kids learn, all to pay 
for a tax break for Trump's billionaire buddies and for friends 
of Elon Musk.
    Today, we have heard on the Committee alarming support from 
House Republicans for a national voucher scam, that would pull 
money out of our public schools and hand it out in private 
contracts just to enrich their billionaire donors and/or 
friends. If you cannot believe it, just take a look at what has 
happened here over the last couple of months.
    Musk has been using the Federal Government to get himself 
even more rich. He spent 277 million dollars to elect Donald 
Trump, and since the election he has become 154 billion dollars 
richer. How is making billionaires richer, while taking money 
away from our kids--how is that good for education? How is that 
good for student outcomes? How is that good for our community? 
How is that good for our taxpayers?
    It is good for no one, but Trump's ego, and for Musk's 
pocketbook. In places like Texas, I have seen rural Republicans 
speak out against these voucher scams because they know that 
pulling money out of our teachers and out of our public schools 
to hand over to unaccountable voucher schools is not empowering 
parents. It is taking money away from parents and handing it to 
these companies.
    For years, unaccountable, unregulated private schools have 
stolen public money through State voucher programs. We know 
some of those voucher schools took public funds for kids that 
were not even intended, or going to those schools, were not 
attending that school, embezzling millions of dollars.
    Elon Musk has used this kind of thing to his advantage for 
years. Remember that he is a government contractor himself, who 
is taking untold amounts of money from a Federal Government 
that he has saying he is trying to make more efficient for 
somebody, but he is really trying to make it more efficient for 
himself.
    What happens to our students that we want to learn when 
they have Title I funds cut away from about 60 percent of our 
public schools because of this House Republican plan to give a 
billionaire a tax break? Who fills that gap? Is that our 
teachers spending their extra money that they barely have so 
that they could support our students?
    Is that local taxpayers that then have to pay to fill the 
gap essentially backfilling the billionaire tax break that the 
Republican majority wants to pass? Our public schools that 
serve, not just poor kids, but working class and middle-class 
kids going to have to close? How does that improve learning for 
our students?
    We must continue to fight, and I am ready to fight on a 
bipartisan basis. If we can see some bravery from some number 
of rural Republicans, just like I have seen in the last few 
years in places like Texas, who are willing to stand up to the 
grift, who are willing to stand up to the corruption, are 
willing to actually stand up for our students.
    We can improve our education system, and we can do it 
without stripping it for parts and selling it to the highest 
bidder. Trump, Musk , and their minions, want to expand these 
voucher scams not because they want to improve reading, not 
because they want to improve math, but because they want to 
improve their own wealth. They want to improve their own 
standing in the stock market.
    You know, this DOGE supposed agency to me is not the 
Department of Government Efficiency, it is the Department of 
Billionaire Corruption. From politically motivated firings this 
last week, to privatizing education, to eliminating whole 
departments against the Constitution, all so that private 
contractors can cash in, Trump and Musk are focused on one 
thing, enriching themselves no matter what the cost to 
Americans, and I would hope to hear some House Republican spine 
against this spineless corruption.
    Unfortunately, what I have been hearing in Committee today, 
Mr. Chairman, is people either being silent, or going along 
with it even though they know it is going to hurt our kids. 
Look at State after State after State where they have passed 
these voucher scams, even Republicans that voted for it.
    You talked to them publicly and privately, they say this 
did not help. All it did was take money away from those schools 
that are asking for our help. Those people like us that are 
entrusted with these positions of power, we should be using it 
responsibly, and not just be going along with the folks that 
already have more wealth than anybody has ever had in the 
history of this planet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize 
the Chairman of the Workforce Protections Subcommittee, a new 
member of our Committee as well, Mr. Mackenzie from 
Pennsylvania.
    Mr. Mackenzie. Well, thank you Mr. Chairman for the 
opportunity to talk about the State of American education 
today, and I appreciate all of our testifiers sharing their 
experiences and their opinions with us. It is an important 
conversation we are having because when we look at higher 
education for the years that I have been in public office, both 
at the State level and here at the Federal level now, we have 
been touting and advocating choice for individuals in higher 
education.
    We have said that higher education is not only about 4-year 
colleges, but we have said that there is so many other good 
options out there available to students, whether it is career 
and technical schools, going into the military, going straight 
into the workforce, then maybe doing continuing education in 
that particular job.
    Lots of choice at the higher education level. What we have 
in America is we have the best system of higher education in 
the entire world because of that choice. That is a key element 
of our higher education system. Then when we talked about K 
through 12 education, for some reason people want to oppose 
choice. They want to block choice.
    They want to hold people in positions where they are 
failing, or they are not secure in their own school districts. 
I want to give the example of a family that came to me to talk 
about their young daughter who is in high school. She is a low-
income student, but she is in a very good school district. By 
all accounts she should have been getting a good education, but 
ultimately she became the victim of bullying.
    I am just talking about light bullying, or you know, 
friendly jostling in the hallways. This was assault. I saw the 
videos. It was assault, and the school meted out the proper 
punishment, but ultimately the perpetrator ended up back in the 
same school, and that student felt like she could not actually 
go to school and learn in a safe environment, even though it 
was a good school.
    Everybody in the community knows that that is a great 
school district, and she should be getting a good education. 
The parents, they wanted to consider their different options. 
They looked at online schooling, and they said well, that is 
not going to work for her. That school district did have an 
online option, but they said we are two working parents, we are 
not going to be able to be there and supervise her on a day in 
and day out basis.
    She is not going to be able to learn in that kind of 
environment. We do not feel like she would be safe at home. 
They looked at private schools. The price was too expensive, 
she did not qualify for any scholarships, and so that option 
was closed to them as well because they were not wealthy, they 
did not have that choice, so that choice was closed out to 
them.
    Finally, there were charter schools in our community. They 
looked at the charter schools, but those seats were capped 
because people who wanted to oppose choice said that she could 
not get an additional seat in that school.
    Ultimately she was stuck in this situation where she was in 
a great school district where almost all of the other students 
are learning well, but she, as a victim of bullying, was stuck 
in an environment where she did not feel safe, she was not 
ultimately going to school, she was not learning, and she was 
going to be on a path to failing that school year because of 
opposition to choice.
    When people stand up here in opposition to choice, I want 
to recognize that there are real victims. When you oppose 
choice, there are people, there are individuals in those 
classrooms who are the victims of your opposition to choice. 
What we need to do is we need to talk about expanding choice 
for everybody, so that every student has that opportunity to 
succeed.
    It should not just be for the wealthy, it should be for 
every student regardless of your race, regardless of your 
socioeconomic status. We want that choice for everybody. The 
public wants that choice. If you look at public opinion 
polling, overwhelmingly it is in favor of school choice.
    That is the minority position to oppose choice in K through 
12 education. That is a losing position, it is failing, it is 
not only failing our public, it is failing students like the 
one that I talked about today. What I want to do is I want to 
raise up those voices of parents.
    I want to raise up the voices of advocates for school 
choice, those are not just buzz words. There are real people 
and real lives attached to those movements. When we stand here 
and oppose, I want you to recognize that you are not just 
opposing choice, you are opposing that girl who is a victim of 
bullying. You are opposing her getting a better education, a 
better opportunity and a better life.
    That is what you're opposing. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank 
you for the opportunity to have this discussion at the start of 
this session about the State of American education. We have 
lots of things that we can improve upon, but there are so many 
good things going on across this country that everybody should 
have access to.
    Every single person should have those same opportunities, 
not just the wealthy, which is what is going on in this country 
right now. We can expand those opportunities to individuals 
that are not wealthy and give them the same opportunities as 
the wealthy by giving them choice.
    Mr. Chairman, I will yield back to you, but I just want to 
say thank you for this opportunity, and I look forward to 
advancing legislation this session that will help every 
American student get the best opportunity and the best life 
they can have. Thank you.
    Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. Now I recognize 
the Chairman of the Early Childhood Elementary and Secondary 
Education Subcommittee and a passionate educator himself, Mr. 
Kiley from California.
    Mr. Kiley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have just received the 
latest test scores for students across this country, and they 
are absolutely alarming. What we see is that the trend 
continues to be one of decline, as you can see in this chart 
right here. The bottom part of the graph shows from 2013 to the 
present average scores in reading and in math, fourth and 
eighth grade. Then the top of the chart is particularly 
interesting because that shows the level of spending.
    The gray curve there is actually inflation, so you can see 
the spending line above that exceeds that. This is a steady 
growth in spending in real dollars that is proceeding in tandem 
with a steady decline in student achievement.
    When we are talking about the reforms that are going to be 
considered by the President, as well as by this Committee, I 
certainly welcome any arguments against them that seek to 
identify what the implications of those reforms might be.
    There are two responses that I think are wholly inadequate 
and are frankly the only responses we have really heard today 
from the other side of the dais. No. 1 is defending the status 
quo. This is the status quo. It is failure, continuing decline, 
a continual dimming of the prospects of America's young people, 
and a diminished capacity of America to lead the world.
    The second response, also inadequate, is to say the 
solution is to just spend more money under the current system, 
because as we can see there has been an inverse relationship 
between spending and student achievement. Mr. Taylor, you 
mentioned this earlier, that simply spending more money does 
not necessarily help matters.
    Why do you believe that is that we see this actually 
inverse correlation between spending and student achievement?
    Mr. Taylor. Well, because we ultimately referred to the K 
through 16 system has the people who produce the product that 
we employers buy. We are increasingly seeing a lower quality 
product come out of the K through 16 system. Sadly, if we go 
back to the manufacturer, the K through 16 system ultimately 
the manufacturer is the parents, but you get into the system, 
and you ask them, and they say well, we are spending more money 
on it, and we are telling them, but you're not giving us what 
we need.
    There is not enough volume, and the people who do come 
through often your product often does not have the skills. Some 
of those are what we call--you call soft skills; we call power 
skills. They do not know how to interact with other employees. 
They do not know how to work on teams, they do not know how to 
show up to work on time.
    There is a startling statistic that 20 percent of right now 
Gen Z parents are showing up to the interviews with them. This 
is what is happening in the workplace, so we are saying got it. 
You are spending a lot of money, but we are going to tell you 
on the other end of this that the product that you are 
receiving and delivering to us is suboptimal.
    Mr. Kiley. Right. This is a characterization of the system 
as a whole. However, there are examples of schools and school 
systems that do quite well, that have an excellent educational 
product. I am very grateful that the Chair has trusted me to 
lead the Subcommittee that spans K-12 education as well as pre-
K, and our overarching goal is going to be to look at how can 
we make it so these examples of really good schools, and good 
school systems become the norm, rather than the exception, and 
I think that there are principles that you can clearly identify 
with successful school systems.
    They allow flexibility in terms of how schools are 
operated. They demand accountability for actual outcomes, and 
then they provide parents and families with choices. Now, this 
of course is generally a characterization of how charter 
schools work, and charter schools are--have been very 
successful in many states across the country.
    Some of the priorities that our Committee is going to focus 
on are No. 1, the question of funding. How do we reimagine the 
role of the Federal Government in education, both when it comes 
to the bureaucracies that existand how funding gets allocated.
    No. 2 is how can we support school choice in states that 
hold states accountable for policies that run against school 
choice, whether that be for charter schools or other forms of 
choice.
    No. 3 is how can we assist educators across the country in 
incorporating the very powerful personalized learning tools 
that advances in technology have made available. No. 4, is 
examining how literacy is being taught across this country. 
There is still way too many districts and states that do not 
properly teach literacy.
    No. 5, is expanding the role of career education, which I 
know is a major priority of the Chair, and No. 6 is we need to 
look at the broken nature of special education funding, which 
is clearly inadequate for many districts, causing many 
districts to have to then dip into their general fund budgetand 
is not giving students with special needs and their families 
the support that they need.
    I think that we have a tremendous opportunity, Mr. Chair, 
to catalyze absolutely amazing education reform across the 
country that will go a long way toward helping millions of kids 
and better preparing our country for global leadership in the 
future. I yield back.
    Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. We wish you well 
on those ideas and challenges. I now have the privilege of 
recognizing the Chairwoman Emeritus of this Committee, Mrs. 
Foxx from North Carolina.
    Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank our witnesses 
for being here today. An important topic that you are dealing 
with. Dr. Cooper, the Parent Plus Program has been regarded by 
many as the most predatory program in the Federal student loan 
portfolio.
    Like Grad Plus, these loans have origination fees four 
times higher than the Stafford loans provided to students at a 
9 percent interest rate, which is higher than many private 
student loans today. Moreover, Parent Plus loans have no limit 
on how much parents can borrow. Can you discuss the harms of 
Parent Plus, as well as who is actually benefiting from these 
programs?
    Mr. Cooper. Thank you, Dr. Foxx. The Parent Plus Program is 
a predatory loan program. There is simply no other way to 
describe it. As you mentioned, the interest rates exceed 9 
percent, the origination fees exceed 4 percent, and what is 
more, 20 percent of the parents who are getting Parent Plus 
loans foisted on them by colleges, have an expected family 
contribution of zero.
    What that means is that the Federal Government has 
determined that those parents can contribute nothing 
financially to their children's education, yet that same 
Federal Government is turning around and handing them an 
effectively unlimited loan.
    Now, the ones who really benefit from the Parent Plus 
Program are the colleges. Out of 5,000 colleges in the United 
States, just 500 of those use more than 80 percent of Parent 
Plus loans issued every year.
    Mrs. Foxx. Let me do a followup on it. Last Congress, my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle claimed that the 
reforms included in the College Cost Reduction Act, which 
sunset the Parent Plus Program and reformed undergraduate 
lending, to allow for more flexible borrowing limits would 
``cut off access to Federal aid for half of students.''
    From your expert perspective, is this actually true?
    Mr. Cooper. I think that reflects a misunderstanding of 
what the College Cost Reduction Act actually does. Only 10 
percent of college students even use Parent Plus dollars, so it 
is impossible for half the students to be affected by that, and 
as a matter of fact the Urban Institute found that over 90 
percent of college students would be unaffected by the limits 
imposed in the College Cost Reduction Act.
    Who would be affected are the schools that are simply 
charging outrageous amounts and forcing the amounts onto 
parents. I would say not allowing those schools to foist 
unlimited loans on the parents is a feature, not a bug.
    Mrs. Foxx. Well, a bit of hyperbole then, right? Mr. 
Taylor, I know employers are thinking about student debt of 
their employees. We have been trying to address that issue 
here. I find it crazy that we allow people to borrow unlimited 
amounts through the Plus Loan Program.
    Worse, that we allow parents and even grandparents to 
borrow unlimited amounts when the Federal Government has 
determined they have no ability to pay them off, as Dr. Cooper 
just said. How do you feel about the Plus Loan Program, and do 
you think it is fair we lend the money out in this manner?
    Mr. Taylor. Dr. Foxx, great to see you. We have been 
talking about this work a long time, the Thurgood Marshall 
College Fund, because I think the Parent Plus loan, to use the 
term ``predatory,'' as that program currently works is an 
understatement.
    We have seen--I understand access and the importance, 
particularly in the graduate school of Graduate Plus type 
programs, and one to help diversify our Nation's workforce. The 
flip side is that we know that on the employment side people 
show up with $150,000 of debt and an undergraduate degree in 
art, or communications, whatever it is.
    They simply cannot focus on their work because they are 
working two jobs. It is not at all unusual to find someone who 
is under that kind of debt load from the undergraduate debt 
load, and my gosh, if they went to go get a master's degree, 
and those students simply cannot perform, so they are working 
40 hours with us, 30 hours in the evening with Uber, and then 
they come back to us, and they are not their best.
    We are therefore, not getting the return on our investment. 
We then fire them, and it is a vicious cycle. It is not about 
on the front end, well intended, I am certain the policy, but 
in the end what it has done has made it very difficult for 
employers to retain high-quality people and to see the 
productivity and efficiency that we need.
    Mrs. Foxx. Thank you. Ms. Neily, 2 weeks ago I introduced 
H.R. 650, the Family Rights and Responsibilities Act. This 
legislation affirms the fundamental right that parents have to 
direct the education and upbringing of their children before 
interfering in parental educational choices.
    This bill requires the Federal Government to prove a 
compelling government interest. In your experience, does the 
Department of Education know a child's needs better than 
parents do?
    Mrs. Neily. Absolutely not. Parents know what is going on. 
They know what their children's needs are, what their 
children's education style are, and so to the extent where 
parents are able to determine an education, institution or 
values that comport with what they want, as opposed to what a 
bureaucrat in Washington wants, I think it is so much the 
better, so thank you.
    Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Walberg. I think the gentlelady. I now recognize 
the conservative conscience from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman.
    Mr. Grothman. Okay. A couple things. First of all, we are 
going to look at college because we have kind of covered 
everything today. At the University of Wisconsin in 1993, there 
were 26,000 full-time employees, OK. Ten years later the number 
of full-time employees went up from 26,000 to 33,000, but the 
number of faculty fell from about 7,200 to 5,800.
    There was a dramatic cut in the number of faculty and a 
dramatic increase in the number of what I will call 
administrative staff, something that was not teaching. Can you 
comment on that to me at all? I believe that is a nationwide 
trend, and that is why I want to bring it up because we always 
talk about cost of education.
    It seems to me, I mean I have talked to some people in the 
universities, they try to give me honest answers, but what is 
the deal on that? Does somebody want to comment on this?
    Mr. Cooper. America's universities absolutely have a 
spending problem. U.S. universities and colleges spend more per 
student than any other large county in the developed world. The 
University of Wisconsin is just one example.
    Mr. Grothman. Okay. Well, that is good. I will give you 
another question. Different countries start educating their 
students formally at different ages, and in America that could 
be 5 years old, can be 6 years old, whatever, but there is no 
question that some countries, and I think countries like 
Finland or Singapore, they start a formal education later, and 
thereby have a higher percentage of the children with their 
parents.
    Do you know why we are--can you comment on this idea, the 
American idea of in cost trying to get the children away from 
their parents earlier and earlier, which I hear a lot of some 
advocates for, as opposed to doing it in other countries where 
we have more confidence in the parents. Do you have some 
comment on that?
    Mrs. Nelson. Is that an open question?
    Mr. Grothman. Yes. Well, I just want a comment on that, why 
maybe we do not try to--since we are supposed to be a free 
country here. Why do we not emulate counties like Israel, I am 
sorry, emulate countries like Finland and Singapore where, you 
know, the parents are primarily responsible for the children at 
a younger age?
    Mrs. Nelson. Well, studies have shown that universal pre-K 
has boosted the ability of students to succeed in every 
context. If you invest in pre-K, you see the dividends returned 
at every other step of the education system. The other 
countries that you refer to that enable parents to stay with 
their children longer also have social supports for those 
families.
    They have a social safety net. They have other income that 
they provide for families in order to sustain their economic 
wherewithal when they are unable to work because they are 
taking care of their children.
    Mr. Grothman. Right. I am familiar with the Brookings 
Institution's study on Head Start, and it showed it was not 
that good. Do any of the other three of you have an opinion on 
getting kids in a formal setting at a younger age?
    Mrs. Neily. I think the devil is in the details on how we 
execute on some of these things. The programs that we are 
seeing, the pervasive, poisonous ideology in K to 12 schools, 
if we start that even earlier at younger ages, 3, 4 years old, 
and we start to teach children to identify themselves and 
others on the basis of race, sex, or other amenable 
characteristics I think it really continues to exploit the 
power dynamic between an adult and a child.
    To the extent where parents want to keep their children 
home, I think universal pre-K really removes that choice from 
parents, and that is something that I oppose.
    Mr. Taylor. What I oppose though is that what we know is 
that we have a problem keeping women in the workforce. They 
disproportionately are responsible for early childcare. To the 
extent that is an opportunity for a woman to go back to work 
who wants to go back to work, and this is not exclusively 
women, but disproportionately women, we can do that by allowing 
them to ensure they have high-quality care for their children 
that is also education.
    Mr. Grothman. Okay. Well, thank you my conservative 
witnesses. Next question I have for you, I was talking to some 
school superintendents recently, and they felt one of the 
reasons that they were struggling in school to provide a good 
education is a lot of the children come from difficult family 
backgrounds.
    They felt there was a difference in the children that had a 
stable, two parent thing. Not that single parents do a 
fantastic job in many cases, a fantastic job, but nevertheless 
they felt overall they were able to do a better job with the 
kids with both parents there.
    Could you comment on that? Is that we have a decline in 
America in the number of kids with both mom and dad at home? It 
seems to hurt the outcomes of the education system. Is that 
true?
    Mrs. Neily. Ian Rowe, at the American Enterprise Institute 
has done terrific research on this, on the success sequence of 
that children obviously do better with two parent households. 
To the extent where we see programs in school that encourage 
the disruption of----
    Mr. Grothman. I will give you one more question.
    Chairman Walberg. The gentleman's time is expired. We will 
have to get the question answered in writing.
    Mr. Grothman. Well, I will let you finish the question 
then, rather than jump in, finish it.
    Mrs. Neily. There are programs in schools right now, Black 
Lives Matter at School Week that prioritize the disruption of 
the western prescribed nuclear family. That would be a two-
parent household. There will be things like that, and so when 
students are learning and being taught lessons like that, I 
think it is a negative.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
    Chairman Walberg. The gentleman's time has expired. Now I 
recognize my friend and the Ranking Member, Mr. Scott from 
Virginia, for his questioning.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Neily, 
should parents always have the right to know things about their 
children, even if there is credible evidence that the child 
will be endangered if the parents get that information?
    Mrs. Neily. Education officials are mandatory reporters, 
and so if the school official believed that a child is in 
danger, they are obligated to report that to Child Protective 
Services. The CPS process is onerous, but there is due process 
built into it, and it is not a school official making a 
unilateral decision about a parent's----
    Mr. Scott. Should the parent always know?
    Mrs. Neily. A parent should know if, unless a school has 
determined that they are harmful, or that they are in harm, but 
that should be referred to CPS, not made unilaterally.
    Mr. Scott. Should the parents have veto power over the 
curriculum?
    Mrs. Neily. Parents should have the choice to determine an 
educational setting that works for their child. If a parent 
decides that a public school is not providing the values or the 
quality of education they want, then they should be able to 
find other alternatives.
    Rich families can already, poor families may not.
    Mr. Scott. Should parents in public schools have veto power 
over the curriculum?
    Mrs. Neily. Parents should have access to their curriculum 
so they should know whether this is a good fit for them or not. 
That is a problem that accessing that information has been 
problematic from coast to coast.
    Mr. Scott. They should not have veto power over----
    Mrs. Neily. I did not say that. I said they should at least 
have awareness of what that is.
    Mr. Scott. I was asking the question. You did not say it, 
that is right. Should they have veto power over the curriculum?
    Mrs. Neily. I have never seen or heard of a school district 
where a parent has tried to exercise veto power over what a 
curriculum is. They would like access to it, and they have 
been----
    Mr. Scott. Ms. Nelson, is there evidence that increases in 
vouchers in public--in private education leads to segregation?
    Mrs. Nelson. Yes. There is evidence that the increase in 
voucher use, voucher scams, siphons money from the public 
education system, and leaves some of the children who are most 
vulnerable without adequate resources. We know that those 
children are disproportionately black, Latino, low income and 
people with learning disabilities.
    Mr. Scott. Do you have--I think you referred to studies 
that showed that increased diversity in the school leads to 
increased student achievement?
    Mrs. Nelson. Yes. There are studies that show that 
increases in diversity, equity and inclusion create a more 
hospitable environment for learning, that they increase higher 
graduation rates, they improve critical thinking, better 
problem solving ability, increased student satisfaction and 
motivation, improve self-confidence.
    There are a multitude of benefits to having a more 
inclusive learning environment.
    Mr. Scott. Is there any evidence that public education is 
enhanced by school choice?
    Mrs. Nelson. No. There is not if you define school choice 
by the voucher scam programs that are being pedaled. School 
choice exists within our public education school system. There 
are many opportunities for students to learn in different ways 
that can be accommodated by strengthening our public education 
school system without vouchers.
    Mr. Scott. What would the elimination of Title I do to 
equitable educational opportunities?
    Mrs. Nelson. It would be absolutely devastating. There are 
many students who come from low-income families who rely on 
Title I funding, who rely on school lunch programs, free 
breakfast programs, and other ways to nourish them, so that 
they can nourish their minds during the school day.
    Mr. Scott. What problems do we need to rationally address 
in public education?
    Mrs. Nelson. We need to address real problems, not 
fictional, or anecdotal issues that people are using to alarm 
parents across the country. What is really plaquing our schools 
is inequitable funding.
    There is not an argument that we necessarily need to pour 
more dollars. We need to take dollars away from things like 
funding prisons where we fund prison populations at a rate of 
three times the amount that we fund per capital pupil 
investments.
    Mr. Scott. That is a historically recent phenomenon.
    Mrs. Nelson. Yes, yes, and almost every person who spoke 
today lauding their education system is spending nearly three 
times the amount on prisoners than they are on actual students. 
We also know that racial segregation in our schools has 
actually increased in the past 30 years because of some of the 
reasons I have mentioned earlier in my testimony.
    Mr. Scott. Let me ask Mr. Taylor a question. Is there 
inherent value that cannot be instantaneously monetized in a 
liberal arts education?
    Mr. Taylor. Absolutely, yes.
    Mr. Scott. How do you improve access to that opportunity, 
or should we just leave that opportunity to those that could 
afford it?
    Mr. Taylor. No. Absolutely not. In fact, what we have 
found, especially at some of our more premium and premier 
employers, many of the high-end professional search firms, law 
firms, et cetera, is that we find people with degrees in 
anthropology, liberal arts music, art, are incredibly critical 
thinkers.
    They learn to work with others, and they are very 
innovative and creative, so we see lots of advantage to the 
traditional undergraduate education, liberal education.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. Now I would like 
to recognize the Ranking Member for his closing remarks.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we have heard a 
lot about school choice, it is really a false choice, it just 
leads to separate and unequal schools. I thought we had gotten 
away from that about 60, 70 years ago. We need to focus on 
improving education, but for the vast majority of the students 
that will be attending public schools.
    We need to also make sure that higher education, that 
people who have access to higher education. I think everybody 
can agree that it is not affordable right now. When people 
calculate, Mr. Cooper, has suggested that people are 
calculating it is not worth it. That is their solution to that 
would be not to--to tell people not to go. The solution to that 
would be make it more affordable, so that everybody can have 
that opportunity.
    As Mr. Taylor mentioned, whether it is technically aligned 
with a particular job or not, because the liberal arts degree 
has inherent value. There are job training programs. We have 
got programs in WIOA, we need to continue working on that. I 
think we are on the right track on that, but access to higher 
education is going to be a challenge, and we just cannot allow 
the present situation that worked 30-40 years ago.
    If any college--virtually any college you wanted to go to, 
you could afford to go to, Pell Grant covered 80 percent of the 
costs of going to the State college. With a summer job and 15 
hours a week during the school year, you could work your way 
through college and come out with no debt.
    Now, as it has been suggested, you work 40 hours a week and 
still cannot come out of college without crushing debt. We have 
challenges in higher education, but the numbers and the results 
of where we are in public K through 12, obviously suggests that 
we need to make significant improvements, but dismantling the 
public education system is not the right course.
    Thank you for holding the hearing, and I yield back.
    Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman, and I thank the 
witnesses for what you have added to our hearing today because 
it would not be a hearing without witnesses, but credible 
witnesses who can speak from different viewpoints, and I think 
that is the same with this Committee here.
    I think I could safely assume that this Committee agree on 
the basics of education and workforce. We have to have an 
educated workforce, and that comes from good educational 
institutions that are achieving, that are making it. I would 
think that the majority--I know for myself, I do not oppose 
public education.
    I do not want to decimate public education. My first 13 
years of education was in public education, and a mother who 
was a public school teacher, and several aunts, and a daughter-
in-law, and all in public education. I think we also ought to 
be able to agree that we have problems.
    Those problems are opportunities. At this point in time, I 
think we can agree that we are not achieving the excellence 
that we want to achieve. Can I safely say that? IDEA funding is 
not funded completely. We know that. The Department of 
Education is responsible for that.
    NAEP scores are going down. Antisemitism and anti-
Americanism has put up its ugly head on our higher education 
institutions, some very elite higher education institutions as 
well. You know, after spending 1 trillion dollars since the 
inception of the Department of Education, we are still failing. 
We have the opportunity to at least work toward solutions, and 
that will cause great attention and some heat and some 
disagreement.
    I think it is important at this time that we jealously--we 
jealously, and that is a word I want to use, steward our 
Article I authorities, but that also includes not fearing 
outside influences up to and including the President of the 
United States, and whoever he has as advisors and assistants to 
find out what he would conclude is what we need.
    We can use that as a goad to do even better, whether we 
agree or disagree. I happen to agree that this Committee will 
work on finding solutions within our Article I authorities and 
powers and responsibilities, and we better not let down on 
that. Student, parents, teachers are our No. 1 priority in the 
educational system, correct?
    Then the workforce is what we have got to point our eyes 
toward, whatever area of workforce there is. They need to be 
the best educated and prepared possible. Expressing our 
diversity bestwill be in the context of merit and excellence, 
and how we achieve that in the end is important.
    We have that opportunity on this Committee to help 
determine where we go. Yes, we want more choice on our side of 
the aisle, and I am not so sure that all of our colleagues on 
the other side would disagree with that. It is what choice it 
is, but we want more choice, and we want the same choice that 
billionaires already have.
    I think I am right on that one. You throw out things that 
this is going to give choice to billionaires. No, they have it 
already. They have the money to pay for it, and they do that. 
We have to find a way to give choice to everybody as much as 
humanly possible.
    I believe we can agree on our desire to improve education 
opportunity for all, and that is where I want us to focus from 
this first hearing on. I wait with expectation of how we can 
work together, and how we can--we can work in a creative 
tension, to force our ideas, all of our ideas, to be better in 
the outcome of it all.
    I think a lot, if not all has been said today, and right 
now all have said it, so if there are no further business to be 
conducted here, and without objection, the Committee stands 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:07 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

    [Additional submissions from Rep. Kiley follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [Additional submissions from Rep. Onder follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]   

    [Questions and responses submitted for the record by Mrs. 
Janai Nelson follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [Questions and responses submitted for the record by Mr. 
Johnny C. Taylor, Jr. follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                 [all]