Search UW System

UW System Home > Government Relations

The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, HHS,

Education and Related Agencies Hearing

U.S. Representative David Obey (D-WI), Chair

Testimony By

Terry Hartle, Senior Vice President

 American Council on Education

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Terry Hartle. I'm senior vice president at the American Council on Education and I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to testify about Title IV and Title VI of the Higher Education Act.

I'd like to begin by thanking the members of the committee for increasing the maximum Pell Grant in the 2007 Continuing Resolution. This is the first significant increase in the maximum Pell Grant in five years and it will benefit 5.3 million students this fall. I'd like to make three basic points.

First, increasing the maximum Pell Grant is the best way to help low-income students go to college. This program is highly focused on low-income families. The average family income of recipients is $20,000. Even after the recent increase in the maximum grant, however, we are in real terms still below the purchasing power that the maximum grant had in 2002.

Federal spending on the Pell Grant program has gone up because college enrollments have soared. Between 2000 and 2006 the number of Pell Grant recipients increased by 40 percent. That's good news.

There are more low-income students finding the way to college, but it's an inescapable fact that these students will need financial assistance to enroll and succeed. We hope that the subcommittee will at least be able to meet the president's request to increase the maximum grant to $4,600 next year.

Second, the administration has unfortunately proposed to eliminate three critical programs that help low-income students: supplemental grants, Perkins Loans and the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnerships. We think this is a bad idea for many reasons.

According to the Department of Education, the $770 million that you made available for supplemental grants last year generated $1 billion in aid to college students because of the matching requirements on colleges. This program also helps low-income students; 90 percent of those who get a supplemental grant also get a Pell Grant.

Even if the Pell Grant is increased to $4,600 as the administration wants, one million low-income students will be worse off if the supplemental grant program is eliminated.

Perkins Loans are an equally compelling example. The federal government has spent $8 billion over the program's history. Thanks to the stiff matching requirements on colleges, this program has generated $29 billion in low-interest loans.

In the coming year alone, 750,000 students will receive Perkins Loans, loans that will be canceled if the recipients become teachers, first responders or join the military.

Finally, I'd like to highlight the importance of Title VI International Education. Just yesterday the National Academy of Sciences released a report that this committee requested from them in the fiscal year 2005 appropriations bill. Let me quote from it directly.

"The Title VI and Fulbright-Hays programs have served as a foundation for internationalization in higher education. Federal funding has served as a catalyst for language in area studies initiatives with a frequent focus on advanced study of less commonly taught foreign languages. Universities themselves have invested significant resources beyond those provided by the Department of Education.

"Nonetheless, Title VI funding, including staff resources, has not kept pace with the expansion and the mission of the programs. While many new programs and objectives have been added since Title VI began, funding in real dollars has not increased proportionately."

In other words, Title VI is successful and important and a good, if underfunded, investment. We hope you'll be able to increase funding for Title VI in the coming year.

The National Academy in their report also recommended the development of new, technology-based methods to better assess language proficiencies and we hope that the committee will encourage the academy to pursue that option.

Mr. Chairman, student aid for low-income students and international education programs that are on your jurisdiction have a great deal to do with the kind of nation that we will be in the future. We ask that you give these programs very careful consideration in your fiscal year 2008 bill.

Thank you.

Testimony of

Dr. Julie Underwood, Dean

School of Education, UW-Madison

Representing the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education

I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here today representing the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. With me today is, Sharon Robinson who's president and CEO of AACTE.

I want to talk to you about an essential ingredient for our nation's future, our public schools; and specifically the main ingredient for learning, professional teachers.

Our nation's public schools face a long and difficult list of challenges these days. Many of our students enter school not ready for the tasks at hand, many are born into families without means to support their learning, many are born into families who do not speak English and where it is difficult for them to support their learning.

Too many perform poorly on academic achievement tests. Our dropout rates are high. And too many of our teachers are leaving the profession within the first five years. There's a sense of urgency and pervasiveness. Such would warrant federal attention at this time.

We know high quality educators are essential to children's learning. Here in D.C., the rhetoric about high quality teachers has never been louder. The federal mandates regarding teacher quality have never been greater. Yet, the federal investment in teacher preparation is diminishing.

We know education is a sound public investment. Unlike many other public expenditures, spending on public education yields financial results. I direct your attention to a recently released study by Henry Levin which indicates that we could recoup $45 billion annually in this country if we could cut our dropout rate in half. That's real money. We know that education is a sound public investment.

I propose to you today a Marshall Plan for educators, which was developed by Linda Darling-Hammond. I have submitted a copy of the full description of that plan with my written testimony to the committee.

Linda Darling-Hammond concludes that we could have a successful national teacher quality and supply policy and it could be accomplished for $3 billion annually -- $3 billion is what we approximately spend a week in Iraq right now. With $3 billion annually -- not $3 billion a week, but $3 billion annually -- we could build a strong teaching force.

Under this plan, we could increase the supply of high quality teachers in high needs fields such as mathematics, science, special education, teaching English language learners and in shortage prone areas of urban and rural communities.

Under this plan, we could improve the retention of highly qualified teachers ending the high cost of teachers who have left. Ill-prepared teachers leave the profession early, many in the first three years. This is expensive for districts to replace and very disruptive for student learning.

The Marshall Plan proposes service scholarships for teacher candidates, recruitment incentives for teachers to high need schools, funds to upgrade teacher preparation programs and teacher mentoring.

Federal involvement in professional training has a history in the United States. We did it in medical education. Similarly, we know there is a significant need to invest in professional education of teachers. We know high quality teachers are key to student achievement.

An increased investment in preparing and retaining effective teachers, particularly in shortage fields and in hard to staff schools, will make a difference. It's not just more tests, it's not just more sanctions, it's not just alternative preparation programs. We need an investment in the capacity to deliver education, and that requires an investment in professional teachers.

Title II of the Higher Education Act -- specifically, the Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants -- are the only federal investment in higher education that support the preparation of teachers. These grants enable K-12 schools and universities to collaborative improve teacher preparation, especially in critical areas.

I'll give you an example. At the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee the university receives an $8.5 million grant under the Teacher Quality Improvement Grant, and they created a project which is an induction model in the Milwaukee public schools.

As a result of this project, the preparation of mathematics teachers has been completely redesigned and data-driven decision- making strengthened throughout Wisconsin's largest and neediest school district.

Activities for this grant have generated more than $60 million in additional funding. This initiative has proven effective and now provides technical assistance to other cities around the nation, including Knoxville, Greensboro and San Jose.

The U.S. Department of Education has described Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants as remarkable and proven them effective. Yet, the president's '08 budget targets its elimination. That's illogical. I know that I can count on clearer logic from this subcommittee.

For the sake of our children and our nation's future, we need to significantly increase our investment in public education. This should be done through a comprehensive program such as the Marshall Plan.

In addition, Title II Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants should be funded and be funded at higher levels. Schools of education are here, ready, willing and able to lead in that effort to ensure that every child has a high quality professional teacher.

We need you, the federal government, to step up and to ensure the funds are there and to act as our strong partner in improving public education.

Thank you for your time and for this opportunity.