Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the benefits of after-school programs in the context of the Department of Education’s 21st Century Community Learning Centers program. The Administration supports the development of local after-school programs, and believes they play an important role in many communities. The Administration also supports the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program, but has taken three important factors into consideration in setting forth its 2004 budget proposal for this program.
First, the recent rigorous evaluation of this Federal program indicates, among other things, that grantees are not having a positive impact on students’ achievement. This Administration is dedicated to funding programs that work, and this rigorous evaluation, initiated by the Clinton Administration, indicates this Federal program has shortcomings.
Second, this Federal program is undergoing a significant, legislatively directed change. Congress established that the Federal Government shift 21st Century grant funding from Washington-selected grantees to those selected by States. Third, the program has grown rapidly with little consideration of its effectiveness. In light of these three factors, the Administration believes the most responsible use of Federal funds would be to fund the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program at $600 million in 2004.
Today I will place 21st Century funding in the context of the President’s 2004 budget. Then I will go into more detail about the specific evaluation findings that led us to believe that this is a good time to reconsider and improve our support for after-school and other extended learning programs.
EDUCATION IS A MAJOR DISCRETIONARY BUDGET PRIORITY
As you know, earlier this year we celebrated the first anniversary of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which President Bush signed into law on January 8, 2002. State officials, administrators, and teachers across the country now are working hard to strengthen their accountability systems, identify research-based strategies for improving student achievement, and offer new choices to parents whose children attend low-performing schools.
The President’s budget seeks $53.1 billion for Department of Education programs in 2004. That represents more than a 25-percent increase since 2001, and a 130-percent increase in Federal education funding since fiscal year 1996. Key increases for the cornerstones of the Federal role in education include: • $12.4 billion for Title I, a 41-percent increase since the passage of No Child Left Behind; • $9.5 billion for IDEA grants to states, a 50-percent increase since he was elected; and • $12.7 billion for Pell grants, for a record 4.9 million students.
The challenge for the President is balancing all of the priorities within and outside education in a responsible budget. The President believes that the limited sums of available Federal funds should be concentrated on programs that have the greatest impact; impact derives from programs that are effective and demonstrate results—in other words, programs that are accountable. This discipline is more difficult in light of the competing demands of the war on terrorism and efforts to restore economic growth.
REALLOCATING SCARCE RESOURCES
Program accountability links to resource allocation. The 2004 budget proposes the elimination of funding for 45 education programs totaling $1.5 billion, and reduces funds for other programs to focus on higher priority activities. In making such decisions we considered the history of the program, recent legislative changes, and program effectiveness. Each of these factors contributed to our decision on the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program.
First, program funding had grown very rapidly, from just $1 million in fiscal year 1996 to $1 billion in fiscal year 2002. This rapid growth was due in large part to the program’s presumed contribution to improving academic achievement, particularly for students in low-performing schools. Second, the No Child Left Behind Act changed the program from a federally administered competitive grant program to a State formula-grant program under which States will make competitive awards. Since all previously awarded projects will conclude during fiscal year 2003, all of the $600 million requested for 2004 would be available to States for new awards during a natural transition year. The requested level actually represents a slight increase over the amount that States will have in 2003 for sub-State awards. The remaining $400 million is for federally administered continuation grants that will end in 2003.
Third, recent evaluation findings strongly suggested that the 21st Century program was not having the desired impact on student achievement. Nor was it effective in achieving other goals, such as reducing delinquent behavior. For all of these reasons, and in combination with the tremendous challenges involved in the implementation of the NCLB Act, we made difficult choices and funded programs that benefit our greatest needs most effectively—Title I, Special Education, and Pell Grants.
EVALUATION FINDINGS SUGGEST A NEED FOR PROGRAM CHANGES To gain a better sense of future program directions for 21st Century Community Learning Centers, I think it helps to take a closer look at our initial evaluation findings. This evaluation, which was conducted by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., uses far more rigorous methodologies than other studies cited in the after-school program literature. The research design included random selection of elementary-level program participants and matched comparison groups for middle school participants. While no single study can ever provide a final or complete picture of the effectiveness of a program, good budgeting in times of scarce resources demands that decisions be made on the best available evidence. This study, which is the strongest to date in the after-school literature, points out very basic shortcomings in the current Federal program:
• Content. After-school programs should emphasize and result in improved academic achievement. Those funded under the 21st Century program do not. Children’s reading scores did not improve. They did not perform better on homework or other assignments. • Behavior. The Federal program had no positive impact on delinquent behavior. In fact, program participants in federally funded programs were slightly more likely to have sold drugs or smoked marijuana than non-participants. • Safety. The program did not make students feel safer, with program participants actually suffering greater property damage than non-participants. • Participation. Put simply, participation was weak. Children in federally funded programs attended just two days a week, on average, and more frequent participation in the program did not lead to better outcomes.
Current investments in the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program have not paid off. We believe the program’s implementation should be reformed, and in light of the transition to State grants, we believe there should be a reallocation of a portion of the funds supporting previous rapid growth.
KEY CHANGES ARE UNDER WAY
With the transition of the 21st Century program to a State-administered competitive grant program, we are taking a number of steps to improve program quality and outcomes. These include: 1) developing model after-school programs based on sound theory and scientific evidence; 2) new research to test the effectiveness of various interventions; 3) improving the availability of research findings and effective after-school practices through our What Works Clearinghouse; and 4) expanding technical assistance at both the State and local levels.
For example, the Department is helping to establish networks of State and local program coordinators so they can share best practices and effective approaches. The Department will continue its practice of convening annual summer grantee institutes in which States and local grantees share ideas on building programs that include high-quality academic instruction.
The Department also plans to work with States to implement successfully the statutory requirement that States establish performance indicators and measures for 21st Century projects to help ensure that this is truly a performance-based program. For example, we plan to issue guidance providing a model of a performance-based competitive grant system that States could use to guide their efforts to comply with the statute. Such a model would help States quantify and monitor the value of academic achievement, behavior and safety performance, and student participation levels linked to recipients of the new State grants.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, Congress and the President share the same goals with this program: supporting local after-school programs that provide a safe environment for students that improve their academic and social outcomes. And we agree that federally funded programs should be rigorously evaluated for their performance under those goals. In light of the evidence, the President believes the best avenue to reach those goals in 2004 will be for the Department of Education to implement the reforms that I have mentioned, and to support this program at the level requested in the President’s budget.
