[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
NEXT STEPS IN K 12 EDUCATION: EXAMINING RECENT EFFORTS TO
IMPLEMENT THE EVERY STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT
=======================================================================
6HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JUNE 23, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-52
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-458 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Virginia
Duncan Hunter, California Ranking Member
David P. Roe, Tennessee Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania Susan A. Davis, California
Tim Walberg, Michigan Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Matt Salmon, Arizona Joe Courtney, Connecticut
Brett Guthrie, Kentucky Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
Todd Rokita, Indiana Jared Polis, Colorado
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Joseph J. Heck, Nevada Northern Mariana Islands
Luke Messer, Indiana Frederica S. Wilson, Florida
Bradley Byrne, Alabama Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon
David Brat, Virginia Mark Pocan, Wisconsin
Buddy Carter, Georgia Mark Takano, California
Michael D. Bishop, Michigan Hakeem S. Jeffries, New York
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Katherine M. Clark, Massachusetts
Steve Russell, Oklahoma Alma S. Adams, North Carolina
Carlos Curbelo, Florida Mark DeSaulnier, California
Elise Stefanik, New York
Rick Allen, Georgia
Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director
Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 23, 2016.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Kline, Hon. John, Chairman, Committee on Education and the
Workforce.................................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'', Ranking Member, Committee on
Education and the Workforce................................ 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Statement of Witnesses:
Hall, Ms. Daria, Interim Vice President, Government Affairs
and Communications, The Education Trust, Washington, D.C... 64
Prepared statement of.................................... 66
Harrelson, Ms. Cassie, Math Teacher, Aurora Public Schools,
Aurora, CO................................................. 59
Prepared statement of.................................... 61
King, Hon. John B., Secretary, U.S. Department of Education,
Washington, D.C............................................ 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Pruitt, Dr. Stephen L.,Ph.D., Commissioner of Education,
Kentucky Department of Education........................... 46
Prepared statement of.................................... 49
Schuler, Dr. David R., Superintendent, Township High School
District 214, Arlington Heights, IL........................ 73
Prepared statement of.................................... 75
Additional Submissions:
Mr. Scott:
Press Release............................................ 92
Letter dated June 22, 2016, to Secretary King............ 95
Letter dated June 23, 2016, to Secretary King............ 97
Questions submitted for the record by:
Salmon, Hon. Matt, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona..................................102,104,107,109
Chairman Kline............................................... 104
Messer, Hon. Luke, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana........................................... 104
Stefanik, Hon. Elise, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York.......................................... 104
Guthrie, Hon. Brett, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Kentucky.......................................... 107
Response to questions submitted for the record:
Ms. Harrelson............................................ 111
Secretary King........................................... 113
Dr. Pruitt............................................... 116
Dr. Schuler.............................................. 121
NEXT STEPS IN K-12 EDUCATION: EXAMINING
RECENT EFFORTS TO IMPLEMENT THE
EVERY STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT
----------
Thursday, June 23, 2016
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Education and the Workforce,
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., in Room
2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Kline [chairman
of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Kline, Foxx, Roe, Thompson,
Walberg, Guthrie, Rokita, Byrne, Carter, Bishop, Grothman,
Curbelo, Allen, Scott, Davis, Courtney, Bonamici, and Adams.
Staff Present: Janelle Gardner, Coalitions and Members
Services Coordinator; Tyler Hernandez, Deputy Communications
Director; Amy Raaf Jones, Director of Education and Human
Resources Policy; Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk; Dominique McKay,
Deputy Press Secretary; Brian Newell, Communications Director;
Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Lauren Reddington, Deputy
Press Secretary; Mandy Schaumburg, Education Deputy Director
and Senior Counsel; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Juliane
Sullivan, Staff Director; Leslie Tatum, Professional Staff
Member; Brad Thomas, Senior Education Policy Advisor; Sheariah
Yousefi, Legislative Assistant; Tylease Alli, Minority Clerk/
Intern and Fellow Coordinator; Jacque Chevalier, Minority
Senior Education Policy Advisor; Mishawn Freeman, Minority
Staff Assistant; Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director;
Christian Haines, Minority Education Policy Counsel; Brian
Kennedy, Minority General Counsel; Julia Lamberti, Minority
Education Policy Fellow; Alexander Payne, Minority Education
Policy Advisor; and Michael Taylor, Minority Education Policy
Fellow.
Chairman Kline. A quorum being present, the Committee on
Education and Workforce will come to order. Welcome back, Mr.
Secretary.
Secretary King. Thank you.
Chairman Kline. Thank you for joining us. When we last met,
the process for implementing the Every Student Succeeds Act was
just getting underway. We had a healthy discussion about the
byproducts of reform that Congress passed and is presently
signed into law. Those reforms are designed to restore State
and local control over K-12 schools.
That is not just my personal view, it is a view held by
governors, State lawmakers, teachers, parents, principals, and
superintendents who recently wrote that ``The Every Student
Succeeds Act is clear, education decision-making now rests with
States and districts and the Federal role is to support and
inform those decisions.''
It is also the view of most honest observers as the Wall
Street Journal editorialized, the law represents ``the largest
evolution of Federal control to the States in the quarter
century.''
The reason for this hearing, and our continued oversight is
to ensure the letter and the intent of the law are followed.
The critical part is holding your agency accountable, Mr.
Secretary, for the steps that are taken to implement the law.
When you were with us in February, you said, ``You can
trust that we will abide by the letter of the law as we move
forward.''
That is a strong statement and it is one of several
commitments you have made that the Department would act
responsibly, but actions speak louder than words. In recent
words, we have seen troubling signs with the Department pulling
the country in a different direction than the one Congress
provided in the law. The first troubling sign is the rulemaking
process itself. There are a number of concerns about the
integrity of the negotiated rulemaking committee, including the
makeup of the panel, a lack of rural representation, and the
accuracy of statements made by the Department staff.
The point of the negotiated rulemaking process is to build
consensus among those directly affected by the law. It seems
the Department has decided to stack the deck. The second
troubling sign surrounds the longstanding policy that Federal
funds are a supplement and do not supplant State and local
resources.
Prior to the Every Student Succeeds Act, this rule is
applied differently depending on how many low-income students a
school serves. Some schools face more onerous requirements than
others. Last year, Congress decided the rule would be enforced
equally across all schools. Now school districts must simply
show that funds are distributed fairly, without prescribing a
specific approach or outcome. The law explicitly prohibits the
Secretary from interfering, yet that is precisely what you are
proposing to do.
What the Department is proposing would be both illegal and
harmful to students and communities. It would impose a
significant financial burden on States and force countless
public school districts to change as they hire and pay their
teachers.
This regulatory effort is trying to achieve an end Congress
deliberately rejected and the nonpartisan Congressional
Research Service warrants and goes beyond ``a plain language
reading of the statute.''
No doubt you have good intentions, Mr. Secretary, but you
do not have the legal authority to do this. I strongly urge you
to abandon this flawed scheme.
The third troubling sign is the Department's accountability
proposal. Let me note that there are policies in this proposal
we are pleased to see, such as how States set long-term goals
and measure interim progress.
But in a number of ways, we also see the Department's bad
habit for making decisions that must be left to States. This is
especially troubling given the law's explicit prohibitions
against Federal interference, including how States compare
school performance and identify schools for support.
For years, States grappled with the rigid accountability
system imposed by Washington. The Every Student Succeeds Act
turns the page on that failed approach and restores these
decisions back to States and local leaders.
I urge you, Mr. Secretary, to adopt a final proposal that
fully reflects the letter and spirit of the law. We are raising
these concerns because it is vitally important for the laws
written by Congress to be faithfully executed and, just as
importantly, we are raising these concerns because we want to
ensure that every child has the best chance to receive a
quality education.
We cannot go back to the days when the Federal Government
dictated national education policy. It did not work then and it
will not work now. If the Department refuses to file a letter
as intended in law, you will prevent State leaders, like Dr.
Pruitt from Kentucky, from doing what is right for the school
districts. You will deny superintendents like Dr. Schuler of
Arlington Heights, Illinois, the ability to manage schools in a
way that meets the needs of their local communities. And you
will make it harder for teachers like Cassie Harrelson from
Aurora, Colorado, to serve the best interests of the students
in the classrooms. Later, we will hear from these individuals
because they represent the people we work to empower.
Every child in every school deserves an excellent education
and the only way to achieve that, though, is to restore State
and local control. That is what the Every Student Succeeds Act
is intended to do and we will use every tool at our disposal to
ensure the letter and intent of the law is followed.
With that, I will now recognize Ranking Member Bobby Scott
for his opening remarks.
[The information follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Kline, Chairman
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Welcome back, Secretary King, and thank you for joining us. When we
last met, the process for implementing the Every Student Succeeds Act
was just getting underway. We had a healthy discussion about the
bipartisan reforms Congress passed and the president signed into law.
Those reforms are designed to restore state and local control over K-12
schools.
That's not just my own personal view. It's the view held by
governors, state lawmakers, teachers, parents, principals, and
superintendents who recently wrote that, ``[The Every Student Succeeds
Act] is clear: Education decision-making now rests with states and
districts, and the federal role is to support and inform those
decisions.'' It's also the view of most honest observers. As the Wall
Street Journal editorialized, the law represents the ``largest
devolution of federal control to the states in a quarter-century.''
The reason for this hearing and our continued oversight is to
ensure the letter and intent of the law are followed. A critical part
of our effort is holding your agency accountable, Mr. Secretary, for
the steps that are taken to implement the law. When you were with us in
February, you said, ``You can trust that we will abide by the letter of
the law as we move forward.''
That is a strong statement, and it is one of several commitments
you've made that the department would act responsibly. But actions
speak louder than words. In recent months, we have seen troubling signs
of the department pulling the country in a different direction than the
one Congress provided in the law.
The first troubling sign is the rulemaking process itself. There
are a number of concerns about the integrity of the negotiated
rulemaking committee, including the makeup of the panel, the lack of
rural representation, and the accuracy of statements made by department
staff. The point of the negotiated rulemaking process is to build
consensus among those directly affected by the law, yet it seems the
department decided to stack the deck to achieve its own preferred
outcomes.
The second troubling sign surrounds the long-standing policy that
federal funds are to supplement, not supplant, state and local
resources. Prior to the Every Student Succeeds Act, this rule was
applied differently depending on how many low-income students a school
served; some schools faced more onerous requirements than others. Last
year, Congress decided the rule would be enforced equally across all
schools. Now, school districts must simply show that funds are
distributed fairly without prescribing a specific approach or outcome.
The law explicitly prohibits the secretary from interfering, yet that
is precisely what your proposal would do.
What the department is proposing would be both illegal and harmful
to students and communities. It would impose a significant financial
burden on states and force countless public school districts to change
how they hire and pay their teachers. This regulatory effort is trying
to achieve an end Congress deliberately rejected and that the
nonpartisan Congressional Research Service warns goes beyond ``a plain
language reading of the statute.'' No doubt you have good intentions,
Mr. Secretary, but you do not have the legal authority to do this. I
strongly urge you to abandon this flawed scheme.
The third troubling sign is the department's accountability
proposal. Let me note that there are policies in this proposal we are
pleased to see, such as how states set long-term goals and measure
interim progress. But in a number of ways, we also see the department's
bad habit for making decisions that must be left to states.
This is especially troubling given the law's explicit prohibitions
against federal interference, including how states compare school
performance and identify schools for support. For years, states
grappled with a rigid accountability system imposed by Washington. The
Every Student Succeeds Act turns the page on that failed approach and
restores these decisions back to state and local leaders. I urge you,
Mr. Secretary, to adopt a final proposal that fully reflects the letter
and spirit of the law.
We are raising these concerns because it's vitally important for
the laws written by Congress to be faithfully executed. And just as
importantly, we are raising these concerns because we want to ensure
every child has the best chance to receive a quality education. We
cannot go back to the days when the federal government dictated
national education policy--it didn't work then and won't work now.
If the department refuses to follow the letter and intent of the
law, you will prevent state leaders, like Dr. Pruitt from Kentucky,
from doing what's right for their school districts. You will deny
superintendents, like Dr. Schuler of Arlington Heights, Illinois, the
ability to manage schools in a way that meets the needs of their local
communities. And you will make it harder for teachers, like Cassie
Harrelson from Aurora, Colorado, to serve the best interests of the
students in their classrooms.
Later, we will hear from these individuals because they represent
the people we want to empower. Every child in every school deserves an
excellent education, and the only way to achieve that goal is to
restore state and local control. That's what the Every Student Succeeds
Act is intended to do, and we will use every tool at our disposal to
ensure the letter and intent of the law are followed.
With that, I will now recognize Ranking Member Scott for his
opening remarks.
______
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this
hearing to discuss the implementation of the bipartisan law we
worked to craft and enact last year. I look forward to the
dialogue with both Secretary King and the panel of expert
witnesses concerning the Department's ongoing efforts to
provide States and school districts with the clarity and
guidance necessary to ensure effective implementation of the
Every Student Succeeds Act.
As I have previously stated, I am proud of our collective
efforts to craft a strong bipartisan law that was worthy of the
President's signature. Doing so is no small feat. However,
passing legislation is only one step of many. Fulfilling the
promise of the Every Student Succeeds Act rests on its
successful implementation that honors Congress' longstanding
intent of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the
intent to support and promote and protect at all levels of
government the right to an educational opportunity for every
child, regardless of race, income, language status or
disability.
While ESSA returns much decision-making power to the State
and local level, it is not a blank check. The Federal law
includes important guardrails, most importantly that States and
school districts are required to take action when students are
not learning.
States and districts get to decide which actions are most
appropriate in each school's unique context, but taking some
action is not negotiable. A robust regulatory framework is
necessary to ensure that States and school districts are
getting the job done and taking action and each and every
school is required to do so by federal law.
The regulations require States and local districts to fully
comply with the Federal law. Getting this right is hard work,
and the Federal Government has an important role to play.
I wanted to thank the Department of Education under the
leadership of then acting Secretary King for moving so quickly
to provide feedback for and to provide necessary clarity to
practitioners, parents, and community members through the
proposed regulations.
I also want to commend the Secretary and staff for their
transparency and continued collaboration with members in this
committee and our staff throughout the process. The Department
has demonstrated a commitment to fulfilling its regulatory
responsibilities critical to helping States and school
districts move forward expeditiously.
On this point, there is considerable agreement. Although
some State and local stakeholder groups originally urged that
there be no regulatory framework, those very same groups in
combination with others on the negotiated rulemaking panel
reached an agreement on the proposed assessment regulatory
text.
We thank members of that panel, including the Department,
for working and making compromises to reach consensus on
proposed regulations with some of the most contemptuous and
challenging issues in the entire law. Their consensus serves as
a powerful affirmation of the need for the clarity and
direction that the regulations provide.
In addition to the negotiated rulemaking process, the
Department recently released its proposed regulatory text for
accountability, intervention, data reporting, and consolidated
state plan development for public commenting. Again, I want to
thank the Secretary for moving so quickly. Many individuals and
groups request additional regulatory clarity on these important
issues and the Department heeded those requested as the
Department has done in the past.
I am sure the robust dialogue, with all stakeholders,
including Congress, will inform revisions and improvements in
the proposal during the 60-day comment period which closes
August 1st.
I look forward to hearing from today's experts on the
specifics of the Department's proposal. And just as the Federal
Government works to meaningfully to engage the diverse
stakeholders to effectively implement the new law, State and
local leaders must use the clarity provided by the Federal
regulations to work collaboratively with all stakeholders in
the development of new plans as the implementation moves
forward.
The upcoming election will usher in a new administration.
With less than six months before that transition, Secretary
King's time at the Department is winding down. And with this
upcoming change in leadership, States and school districts need
the consistency and dependability to provide regulations,
election year or not.
I look forward to hearing from the Secretary about his
efforts to put in place a meaningful regulatory framework that
empowers States and districts to fulfill the congressional
intent and improve educational equity beyond the current
administration. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
[The information follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Ranking Member,
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this important hearing to
discuss implementation of the bipartisan law we worked to craft and
enact last year. I look forward to dialogue with both Secretary King
and the panel of expert witnesses concerning the Department of
Education's ongoing efforts to provide states and school districts with
the clarity and guidance necessary to ensure effective implementation
of the Every Student Succeeds Act.
As I have stated previously, I am proud of our collective efforts
to craft a strong bipartisan law that was worthy of the President's
signature. Doing so was no small feat. However, passing legislation is
only one step of many. Fulfilling the promise of the Every Student
Succeeds Act rests in successful implementation that honors Congress'
longstanding intent of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; the
intent to support, promote and protect, at all levels of government,
the right to educational opportunity for every child, regardless of
race, income, language status, or disability.
While the ESSA returns much decision-making to the state and local
level, this new law is not a blank check. Federal law includes
important guardrails - most importantly, states and school districts
are required to take action when students aren't learning. States and
districts get to decide which actions are most appropriate to address
each school's unique context, but the action is a non-negotiable.
A robust regulatory framework is necessary to ensure that states
and school districts are getting the job done and ACTING in each and
every school required by federal law. Regulations empower states and
school districts to fully comply with federal law.
Getting this right is hard work and the federal government has an
important role to play.
I want to thank the Department of Education, under the leadership
of then-Acting Secretary King, for moving so quickly to collect
feedback from and provide needed clarity to practitioners, parents, and
community members through proposed regulations.
I also want to commend the Secretary and his staff for their
transparency and continued collaboration with members of this committee
and our staffs throughout the process. The Department's demonstrated
commitment to fulfilling its regulatory responsibility is critical for
helping states and school districts move forward expeditiously.
On this point, there is considerable agreement. Although some state
and local stakeholder groups originally urged that there be no
regulatory framework, those very same groups - in combination with
others on the negotiated rulemaking panel - reached an agreement on the
proposed assessment regulatory text. I want to thank members of the
negotiating panel, including the Department, for working - and making
compromises - to reach consensus on proposed regulations for some of
the most contentious and challenging issues within the entire law.
Their consensus serves as a powerful affirmation of the need for the
clarity and direction that regulations provide.
In addition to the negotiated rulemaking process, the Department
recently released its proposed regulatory text for accountability,
intervention, data reporting, and consolidated state plan development
for public comment. Again, I want to thank the Secretary for moving
quickly.
Many individuals and groups requested additional regulatory clarity
on these important provisions, and the Department heeded those
requests. As has been emblematic of the Department's work to-date, I am
sure that robust dialogue with all stakeholders, including Congress,
will inform revisions and improvements to the proposal during the 60
day comment period, which closes on August 1. I look forward to hearing
from today's experts on the specifics of the Department's proposal.
Just as the federal government works to meaningfully engage with
diverse stakeholders to effectively implement the new law, state and
local leaders must use the clarity provided by federal regulations to
work collaboratively with all stakeholders in developing new plans, as
the implementation process moves forward.
The upcoming election will usher in a new administration, and with
less than six months left before that transition, Secretary King's time
at the Department is winding down. With this upcoming change in
leadership, states and school districts need the consistency and
dependability provided by regulations, election year or not.
I look forward to hearing from the Secretary about his efforts to
put in place a meaningful regulatory framework that empowers states and
districts to fulfil congressional intent and improve educational equity
beyond the current administration.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
______
Chairman Kline. The gentleman yields back. Pursuant to
Committee Rule 7(c), all members will be permitted to submit
written statements to be included into the permanent hearing
record. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open
for 14 days to allow such statements and other extraneous
material evidence during the hearing you submitted for the
additional hearing record.
It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished
witness.
We are glad to have you here. As Mr. Scott said, the last
time you were here, I believe you were still the acting
Secretary, so congratulations on becoming the official
Secretary of the Department of Education.
Everybody here knows your background and we are delighted
that you are here. I am going to ask you now to raise your
right hand.
[Witness sworn]
Chairman Kline. Let the record reflect that Dr. King
answered in the affirmative. Before I recognize you to give
your testimony, let me just remind you of the lighting system.
It will apply pretty rigorously to my colleagues, not so much
to you. we will turn the 5-minute clock on; that is sort of a
background reference to you. Please give your testimony as you
see fit. It has been a long time since I gaveled down a cabinet
Secretary for speaking too long, but if you would try to wrap
up at a reasonable time because we are getting actually a
surprising number of members to show up considering that the
House adjourned and I am sure there was a race to the airport
sometime early this morning. So I am going to make sure that
all of my colleagues have a chance to engage in the
conversation. Mr. Secretary?
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOHN B. KING, SECRETARY, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Secretary King. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chairman
Kline, Ranking Member Scott, and members of the committee. I
appreciate the invitation to come back before this committee
and testify today regarding how the Department of Education is
moving forward with the implementation of the Every Student
Succeeds Act which the President signed into law on December
10, 2015.
I am grateful that thanks to the leadership of Chairman
Kline and Ranking Member Scott and members of this committee,
Congress acted last year to reauthorize this critical piece of
legislation.
Over the past 7-1/2 years, thanks to hardworking educators
supported by families, our schools and students have made
tremendous strides. Our high school graduation rate is at a
record high and schools in 49 States are helping students meet
college and career ready standards in assessing their projects.
More States also are investing more money in helping make
sure children are ready to succeed when they enter
kindergarten, increasing their spending on early learning by
1.5 billion dollars over the past 3 years and yet, so much work
remains, far too many students from every background still
arrive at college needing remedial classes, and black and
Hispanic students continue to lag behind their white peers in
achievement and graduation rates.
The latest figures from our civil rights data collection
illustrate in powerful and troubling ways the disparities in
opportunity and experience for different groups of students in
our schools.
Just a few statistics. Students with disabilities are more
than twice as likely as students without disabilities to be
suspended.
Schools with high concentrations of black and Latino
students are less likely to offer advanced courses such as
calculus and physics which also are critical for success in
college.
One out of every five high school students who are English
language learners is chronically absent.
These are the very children that the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 as most recently amended by
ESSA was designed to protect and serve.
The good news is that ESSA provides local communities and
States with a pathway toward equity and excellence for all
students as well as tools that will help them get there. Using
the greater flexibility in ESSA, States will be able to go
beyond test scores and mathematics and English language arts by
adding their own indicators of school quality and progress to
ensure a rigorous, well-rounded education for every student. We
know that strong literacy and math skills are necessary for
success in college, careers and life, but they are not
sufficient.
And importantly, a rich, rigorous, well-rounded education
helps our children make critical connections among what they
are learning in school, their curiosities, their passions, and
the skills they will need to become sophisticated thinkers and
leaders who will solve the most pressing challenges facing our
communities, our country, and our world.
Understanding that this requires all of us working
together, States are expected to involve local educators,
parents, civil rights groups, business leaders, tribal
officials, and other stakeholders in choosing other indicators
of quality such as decreases in chronic absenteeism or
increases in the number of students taking and passing advanced
classes.
The legislation also includes critical protections and
provides additional resources for traditionally underserved
students, such as students of color, students from low-income
families, students with disabilities, students learning
English, Native American students, fostered and homeless youth,
and migrant and seasonal farmworker children.
States must take meaningful actions to improve schools
where students or groups of students are struggling and high
schools that have low graduation rates year after year, but the
flexibility of the law also allows them to tailor these
interventions to schools' specific needs. As with all
legislation and policy, the quality and fidelity of the
implementation is critical to success.
Please allow me to update you on our progress towards
helping the States implement this law fully and faithfully.
The first thing we did was listen. Today, we have convened
over 200 meetings with stakeholders across the country.
This included dozens of meetings with educators and school
leaders in rural, urban, and suburban communities across the
country.
We posted a notice seeking public comment on areas in need
of regulation in the Federal Register and requested feedback on
areas in need of guidance. We received hundreds of comments. In
response, we prioritized accountability, including data
reporting and State plans, assessments under Title I, Parts A
and B, and Title I's requirement that Federal dollars
supplement and not supplant State and local funds for
education.
As you know, this past spring, we engaged in negotiated
rulemaking on Title I, Part A, assessment and supplement, not
supplant, regulations. We appreciate the input we received and
reached consensus on assessments, but not on how to enforce the
law's supplement not supplant requirement.
We are now considering how best to address the feedback we
received on the latter as we develop our policy.
Last month, we also issued our Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking on accountability, State plans, and data reporting
which was published in the Federal Register on May 31st for a
60-day public comment period, concluding on August 1st. We
encourage comment on those proposed regulations.
Consistent with a strong civil rights legacy of the law,
the proposed regulations ensure a focus on all students,
including historically underserved subgroups of students, in
accountability decisions. They also ensure that meaningful
action is taken to improve lowest performing schools with
families, educators, and stakeholders playing an important role
in the process. They also ensure that educators, students, and
families have an accurate picture of students' academic
performance.
In April, I announced the Department would be issuing
nonregulatory guidance in several key areas concerning students
in foster care, homeless students, and English learners. Each
of these areas was raised frequently as a priority issue in our
stakeholder outreach.
I am happy to report that this morning, we have released
guidance on ensuring educational stability for children in
foster care. As you know, ESSA for the first time it includes
protections for foster youth who largely, because of their
mobility, lagged behind their peers academically.
Our guidance, released jointly with the Department of
Health and Human Services, clarifies the new statutory
requirements regarding children in foster care, promotes
greater collaboration between State educational agencies, local
educational agencies, and child welfare agencies as well as
highlighting promising examples to help guide implementation.
We plan to issue guidance to support homeless students and
English learners at the end of this summer or early fall.
The Department is also working on guidance to support
States and districts as they implement Title II, Title IV, and
the provisions in ESSA around early learning.
Our aim with these guidance documents would be to highlight
examples and best practices as States and districts make use of
new funding opportunities in the law.
As I noted at the time, we have made incredible progress as
a Nation over the past several years, but there is more to be
done. ESSA is a bipartisan achievement that provides a
statutory foundation to close our remaining gaps and address
our persistent inequities.
I am pleased to hear feedback from this committee today and
look forward to continuing to work with all of you to ensure
high-quality implementation of this law, supported by the
Department, and that guarantees a world-class education for
every child. Thank you, I am happy to answer your questions.
[The statement of Secretary King follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Kline. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I will be happy
to start my feedback now. I partially quoted some of your
remarks from February in my opening statement. That quote came
in response to my request that you would commit to regulating
consistent with the statute.
You said in full, and I am happy to read here and make sure
I have got it right, ``You can trust that we will abide by the
letter of the law as we move forward to do regulations, provide
guidance and technical assistance to States and districts, and
our intent is to work together with you and to gather input
from educators, from parents, and from members of this
committee as we move forward.''
I am concerned your proposal is not fully consistent with
that commitment. The questions I and other members have will
reflect those concerns.
I want to start by asking you about the supplement, not
supplant proposal which you discussed in your opening remarks.
As you know, we asked the Congressional Research Service to
review the proposal and they agreed with us that your proposal,
if it were promulgated as a final rule, would likely be
illegal.
They said, and I quote, ``Based on the plain language of
the above provisions, in conjunction with the legislative
history and the statutory scheme as a whole, it, therefore,
seems unlikely that Congress had intended Section 1118(b) to
authorize the Education Department to establish regulations of
the required Title I(a) expenditures to meet or exceed those of
non-Title I(a) schools.''
I would like you to respond specifically to one of those
conclusions. CRS said the plain language of the section does
not appear to require equalized spending and the chair proposal
failed to justify why you believe it does. Could you explain,
beyond the talking points we have already heard, how a plain
reading of Section 1118(b) would require the result you have
proposed?
Secretary King. Sure, the historical context for supplement
not supplant is important. That language was originally added
to the law after the NAACP LDF report that showed that Federal
dollars were being used to backfill State and local
responsibilities to high-need schools, particularly those
serving students of color. That is the history of that
language. The language clearly must mean that the Federal
dollars are intended to be supplemental, not to backfill State
and local responsibilities.
We know that there are districts where 25 to 30 percent
more is being spent in schools serving affluent students than
in schools a few blocks away serving low-income students.
That is clearly inconsistent with the very words supplement
not supplant.
Our proposal seeks to ensure that we enforce the law as
written, that the funds are truly supplemental, however, we
received feedback throughout the negotiated rulemaking process,
adjusted the proposal throughout that negotiated rulemaking
process, have continued to receive feedback and input from
stakeholders since the completion of the negotiated rulemaking
sessions, and look forward to moving forward in a way that is
responsive to the feedback and input we have received.
Chairman Kline. Well, I thank you for the response.
However, the point I am trying to get at is that the statute,
the plain language of the statute, is very, very clear and it
does not say that the Secretary is allowed to decide on his own
what the intent of the history of this was. The language is
very, very clear and that is what the Congressional Research
Service said.
Second, I want to ask one straightforward question about
your accountability proposal. In looking at it in totality, my
concern, you are deliberately attempting to increase the number
of schools identified for interventions beyond what was
intended in the statute.
Five years from now, what number or percentage of schools
nationwide do you anticipate will be identified for
comprehensive and target support as a result of these
regulatory proposals?
Secretary King. The proposal really seeks to ensure that
States have the opportunity to broaden their definition of
educational excellence, to introduce additional indicators of
performance beyond just English and math performance and
graduation rates.
It also creates the opportunity for States to set goals and
targets for performance and it importantly requires that States
and districts intervene when schools are in the bottom 5
percent of performance, when schools are struggling with
particular subgroup performance, and when schools have low
graduation rates year after year. The number of schools that
will be identified will depend on how States use that
flexibility, but clearly a priority in the law was to ensure
that States act meaningfully in schools that are struggling
over their achievement gaps and that is what the regulations
require.
Chairman Kline. So as you pointed out, you do not know and
that is not to be--not a surprise. How many schools would fall
into that category?
Presumably, the Department is doing some analysis of this
as it goes forward and if that is so, would you please commit
to providing that analysis to us so we can see how this is
going to unfold? I am afraid that right now, I mean, we are
early here and that is why I am glad you are here so we can get
at this, it looks like there is an attempt here to increase the
number of schools identified for interventions. And so we want
to look at that analysis. That is not the intent of the
statute, we need to see that number go up.
We wrote the language very specifically. Yeah, I have asked
and you have answered that you will give us that analysis as we
go forward. Let me yield for questions to Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin, I would
like to submit for the record documents, one a statement
released yesterday by 31 civil rights groups calling for
stronger accountability regulations and another letter from the
leadership of the Tri-Caucus urging the Secretary and the
administration to fulfill its regulatory obligation and protect
the civil rights of all students, including that supplement not
supplant and--
Chairman Kline. No objection.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. And Mr. Secretary, when you propose
regulations as a comment period, what is the purpose of the
comment period and what happens after the comment period?
Secretary King. The purpose is really for us to gather
input from stakeholders. We want to hear from educators, from
parents, from civil rights organizations, from tribal leaders,
from business communities, from community based organizations
that are working with young people, particularly our young
people most at risk and we will gather that input and we will
address it and similarly we want input from members of Congress
and appreciate this opportunity to gather feedback.
The ultimate regulations will reflect our attempt to
respond to the input we have received.
Mr. Scott. You mentioned supplement not supplant. There's
language in Brown v. Board of Education that said that the
opportunity of education is a right which must be made
available to all on equal terms.
If a locality is chronically underfunding certain schools,
is there not an obligation to come up with some appropriate
equitable funding outside of the ESSA?
Secretary King. Absolutely.
Mr. Scott. And then supplement and not supplant would mean
that you would have to supplement over what your legal
obligation is, is that right?
Secretary King. That is right.
Mr. Scott. Can you say a word about how you identified--how
you make sure that all students in underserved schools receive
the support that they need in light of the fact that some
schools look like they are doing okay but subgroups are not
performing?
Secretary King. That is right. We have been careful in
regulations to try to ensure that schools do not fall through
the cracks because we do not want students to fall through the
cracks, so the regulations give States the opportunity to set
meaningful goals and targets, but require them to intervene
where schools are not making overall progress for their
subgroups. And so we will be vigilant in showing that States
respond and States have to intervene where subgroups are
struggling, where the schools are in the bottom 5 percent of
performance or where they have low graduation rates. And if
their interventions do not meaningfully improve student
performance, they will need to intensify those interventions
using evidence of effectiveness.
Mr. Scott. Now, you mentioned the bottom 5 percent. There
is some suggestion that the data collected will not allow you
to rank schools and if you cannot rank schools, how do you
ascertain the bottom 5 percent?
Secretary King. That is an excellent question. It is one of
the reasons the regulations require a summative rating, but how
States approach that summative rating could vary.
Some States may use a numerical index, some States may use
an A-F methodology, some States may use categorical labels for
different sets of schools, but the law does require that States
intervene in that bottom 5 percent of schools and they will
need to have a summative rating to get to that bottom 5
percent.
Mr. Scott. Last month, the GAO released a study that I
requested, along with former Ranking Member George Miller and
Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, on segregation
in public schools K-12. The GAO report found that there is an
increase in racial and socioeconomic segregation and that it is
getting worse.
I have asked for hearings and, hopefully, one day we will
have hearings on that, but what can ESSA do to reduce racial
and socioeconomic segregation in our public schools?
Secretary King. Let me say we are deeply concerned about
the lack of progress since Brown v. Board of Education in
places around the country where we are seeing increased
socioeconomic and racial isolation.
I think there is an opportunity as States consider their
flexibility to intervene in struggling schools to think about
how they create a strategy that would promote school diversity.
We made school diversity a priority in our competitive
grant programs. The President, as you know, has proposed in the
2017 budget an initiative called ``Stronger Together'' that
Senator Murphy and Congressman Fudge and you are also helping
us to advance, that would allow us to direct resources to
support voluntary locally led efforts to increase school
diversity.
We also are using the magnet schools program, the
longstanding magnet schools program, to support local efforts
to increase school diversity, but we know that for our low-
income students, they do better in schools that are
socioeconomically diverse.
We know that we want to prepare all of our young people for
success in a diverse society. All kids benefit from diverse
schools.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kline. Thank you, gentlemen. Dr. Foxx, You are
recognized.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary King, welcome
to the committee. I would like to return to the supplement not
supplant conversation.
In 2011, the Department issued a policy brief and report
analyzing the compliance and the comparability requirement for
per pupil expenditures for Title I schools, a proposal that is
analogous to the Department regulations. Assuming you have more
recent data, would you please provide us the estimated cost in
State and local dollars of compliance with the proposal put
forth by the Department during negotiated rulemaking?
Secretary King. I just want to make a distinction in the
way that the question was framed between comparability and
supplement not supplant. Comparability addresses the issue of
services, supplement not supplant addresses the issue of the
allocation of State and local funding.
The proposal that was discussed in negotiated rulemaking
and adjusted throughout the negotiated rulemaking would require
States to comply with the--supplement districts to comply with
the supplement not supplant provision of the law. The process
that districts would use to do that would be determined by the
districts and so there is not a single number that can be
estimated today for that proposal. But as I said, the proposal
was adjusted throughout the negotiated rulemaking and we will
continue to adjust that proposal based on the input and
feedback we have received since then.
Ms. Foxx. Well, how can the Department put forward a
regulatory proposal without understanding the financial impact
and how can the Congress and the public be expected to evaluate
its wisdom without such information?
Secretary King. Well, the requirement in the statute is
that the Federal dollars be used in a way that is supplemental.
In fact, the language ``supplement not supplant'' is intended
to separate the issue of the use of Federal funds from the
issue of State and local funds, to say that State and local
funds should be allocated in a way that is equitable and then
the Federal funds should be supplemental.
Ms. Foxx. The Center for American Progress reported last
year the nationwide compliance cost for proposals similar to
yours would be 8.5 billion. Do you think that is a reasonable
estimate?
Secretary King. Again, the design of the proposal was to
implement the requirement in the statute that the Federal
dollars be used in a way that is supplemental. Districts have a
responsibility to ensure that they are not using those Federal
dollars to backfill State and local funds. To the extent that
districts are today using Federal dollars to backfill State and
local funds, that is not consistent with the very words
``supplement not supplant.''
Ms. Foxx. Let me now focus on how school districts would
comply with your proposal. The Department's 2011 report
indicates some of the Nation's largest school districts could
have to increase spending by anywhere from less than 1 percent
to as much as 20 percent.
Please tell the committee specifically how school districts
are not able to increase spending by these amounts to comply
with your proposal.
Secretary King. Again, the frame of the question suggests
that districts today are using the Federal dollars in a way
that backfills local and State responsibilities so the
requirement would be for districts to ensure that they are not
doing that, that the State and local funds are allocated in a
reasonable fashion that allows the Federal dollars to be used
to indeed supplement. And to the extent that a district is
spending 25 to 30 percent more in a school serving affluent
kids than in a school serving high needs kids 10 blocks away,
that cannot possibly be consistent with the very words
``supplement not supplant,'' and the adjustment they will need
to make is one that is required by the statute.
Ms. Foxx. If school districts are forced to change teacher
hiring policies and somehow find the legal and contractual
authority to do so in order to comply with the proposal, school
districts, rather than school principals will assume more
authority for personnel hiring decisions in local schools.
Tell us how this would benefit low-income students when we
know that effective principals with greater staffing autonomy
can be one of the most effective ways to increase student
outcomes?
Secretary King. If today districts are using the Federal
dollars in a way that is not supplemental, then they need to
correct that. They can do that in a number of ways.
They could create incentives for veteran, highly effective
teachers to go to schools. They could invest in pre-K programs
in a high-needs school.
They can ensure that high-needs school has access to
counselors or launches advanced coursework. The reassignment of
teachers is not a requirement of the proposal. As a general
matter, I do not think anyone supports forced transfers of
teachers. That is not required by the proposal. What the
proposal requires is that the Federal dollars are used in a way
that is, in fact, supplemental.
Chairman Kline. The gentlelady's time has expired. Ms.
Davis, you are recognized.
Ms. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to see you, Mr.
Secretary. Thank you for joining us, although we probably got
to bed a little bit later perhaps than you did.
I wanted to follow up with Ranking Chairman Scott's
question and ask about the ``n'' size, the number of students
that we group to evaluate whether or not they are being
properly served. And I think that there are some concerns that
students perhaps, especially special education students, for
example, might not be really properly seen within an
accountability system.
Could you comment on that and, for example, if the number
fell to 28, 29 for a group, what would that mean?
Secretary King. We are very concerned about issues of ``n''
size. What we propose in the regulations is that States would
set their ``n'' size, but they would need to provide
justification to the peer review process if they set an ``n''
size above 30. The reason we use that is based upon research
evidence on how we ensure that we capture subgroups as well as
possible.
IES did a study that showed that if you use an ``n'' size
of 40 or more, you would only get to about 32 percent of
students with disabilities but if you use an ``n'' size of 30,
you would get to about 79 percent. So we ask States for a
justification if they want to go above 30.
We have heard feedback that there are stakeholder groups
who are interested in requiring a justification at a lower
``n'' size and we do worry about subgroups getting missed and
at the schools where a particular subgroup of students does not
get the adequate services to make academic progress and that is
never identified. One of the important elements of the law is
requiring subgroup disaggregated data and we want to make sure
that is enforced while preserving for States the flexibility to
justify their ``n'' sizes.
Ms. Davis. Exactly. I mean, the disaggregation we know is
key.
In looking back at the way this was done previously and
States moving forward, are you confident that you are going to
be able to have this be more a universal standard or, in fact,
it sounds like there is quite a bit of leeway perhaps with some
groups? I just wanted to throw that out there because I know
that it is a concern and it will be very important not to have
that slipping.
Secretary King. Yes, that is a very fair concern. The vast
majority of States today are at 30 or lower and we think the
peer review process will provide an important check on the end
sizes that States ultimately choose.
Ms. Davis. All right, thank you. And I wanted to go to the
issue of teacher evaluations because we know that in ESSA, it
is quite clear that this is really up to local school
districts. And yet I wanted to sort of talk about the language
a little bit because clearly, in this legislation, we want
States and we certainly want school districts to do the very
best they can in developing a program that engages teachers in
the process and in addition helps them be better, helps them do
what they really want to do and have it be meaningful. And that
is where many districts and many States really do not have a
process to do that, so where is the Federal role in that now
and what is certainly within the purview of the ESSA?
Secretary King. We think it is very important that the
Every Student Succeeds Act preserves the language of equitable
distribution of quality teachers from No Child Left Behind, and
so we have been working with States, as you know, on equity
plans where States are working on initiatives to ensure that
their teachers are well prepared, that they have a diverse
supply of teachers, that they are getting teachers to high-
needs schools.
There are State initiatives focused on rural schools. State
initiatives focused on the necessity of teachers of English
language learners where some States are struggling in shortages
and we think those equity plans are very important. What we
propose in regulations for comment is that States will adjust
and update those equity plans based on some of the new language
that appears in the Every Student Succeeds Act. But we want to
make sure that our low-income students, students of color,
students with disabilities, English learners are not
disproportionally taught by teachers, for example, who are
teaching out of field. And so that is an important, I think,
requirement of ESSA and an important principle.
Ms. Davis. Yeah, I think I am equally concerned about that
sharing of information because we know that we have peer
evaluation systems that actually work very well, also, and they
may require more substitute time, but I just want to mention
that and go ahead and--
Chairman Kline. Gentlelady's time has expired. Dr. Roe?
Ms. Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Roe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And congratulations, Dr.
King, on your nomination and appointment as Secretary. And just
a couple of comments about backfill. And in our State I was the
mayor of our local community. Once we had raised the education
spending, we could never go back, so there was no backfill at
all.
Anything that came in was additional to what we had in the
list, at least in the State of Tennessee. And for the first
time since I have been a Congressman, 7-1/2 years, it is fun to
walk into an elementary school or high school and see smiling
teachers and smiling administrators finally. They do like this
bill.
I spoke with one of my school directors yesterday and I
think it is really the implementation of it and that is why we
are talking today so that last night we went to a 1,000-page
rule to define one word. I do not think we need that kind of
weight down on these folks and distance where we are, the
Department of Education is provided grants where for the
Foundation where I live, it has done a great job of getting
distance.
I want to revisit a conversation we had in February about
the weights States apply or the indicators of their
accountability system. It said, and I quote, ``I think we have
an opportunity where the States can broaden how they define
excellent education and make their definition more well rounded
than the narrow focus on English and math assessments like we
saw during the No Child Left Behind era.''
I was pleased that your proposal did not prescribe weights
or offer a range of weights in which States would have to
choose but I am concerned about the parameters that did include
to limit the way States waiver indicators.
Can you point to me the statutory language that supports
your proposal and how the limitations imposed in your proposal
fit with your commitment to give States an opportunity to
broaden how they define success?
Secretary King. Thanks. I appreciate your question. So, we
carefully, consistent with the statute, do not prescribe the
weights or percentages for different indicators. The statute
does require substantial weight for the academic indicators and
that the academic indicators are of much greater weight than
the other indicators. And so we built into the regulations a
set of checks that will be implemented through the peer review
process to ensure that States are acting in ways that are
consistent with the statutory language around substantial
weight and much greater weight.
But we do think there is tremendous flexibility for States
to think through what additional indicators they will use to
supplement English and math and graduation rates and
opportunity for States to look at things like whether or not
they are providing access to advance coursework as that effort
tries to do in Tennessee, whether providing access to advanced
coursework in a way that is equitable for various subgroups of
students.
Mr. Roe. We agree that local control is essential.
Accountability is essential and desegregation of data is
essential to find out that our children--their needs are not
being met.
Mr. Secretary, as you know, the statute requires States to
include in their accountability systems at least one indicator
of school equality or student success. The point of this, of
course, is to ensure the State accountability systems are
taking into consideration more than just test scores in
determining school performance.
The statute includes a few broad parameters for this
indictor but your proposal goes beyond those parameters by
requiring that this additional indicator be supported by
research that performance or progress on such indicator is
likely to increase student achievement or graduation rates.
Could you provide the statutory justification for adding this
additional requirement?
Secretary King. This is really about the State plan and
showing that as States do this work of identifying these other
indicators, that the indicators are connected to students'
long-term success, which is the goal of these additional
indicators being a part of the accountability system. And as
the peers and experts on the peer review panels review the
State plans, we think it is important for them to look at the
indicators in that context.
One quick example: in the CRDC data that I just described,
we found that nationally 13 percent of students are chronically
absent. That is 13 percent of students are missing more than 15
days of school each year.
We know that chronic absenteeism is closely connected to
students' progress from grade to grade and their likelihood of
graduation. That is a good example of an indicator that a State
might consider. Obviously it is up to States to decide what
those would be, but that is a good example of where there is
very strong evidence based on the association between that
indicator and long-term success.
Mr. Roe. Just one last comment before my time expires is
that I think we have a great opportunity to put the fun back in
education again.
I mean, the teachers were just absolutely--I would go into
a group of educators and ask how many would do this job again
and the majority would not and that is not good. And I think
this gives us an opportunity to put the fun back in education
and I hope we do not weight it down too much. I yield back.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Adams.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you Ranking
Member Scott and Secretary King. I thank you for joining the
committee again and congratulations.
I am very proud of the work that was done to get the Every
Student Succeeds Act passed into law. The reauthorization of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was long overdue and
we owe it to our students and families around this country to
update this important legislation. And now as we work toward
implementing the act, I believe it is appropriate for us as
members of Congress to monitor its progress, but I am
absolutely opposed to efforts to undermine the Department of
Education and the spirit of the law. We had our chance to write
the law and now we should let the process move forward.
Additionally, the Federal Government has an appropriate role in
education policy and I believe that the Department will move it
forward to fully realize it.
In States like my State, North Carolina, Federal policies
are essential to protect our students from a number of State
policies that in my opinion are ruining a State that has once
been a leader in education. Since Republicans took over the
General Assembly, we have passed a number of bills and I was
there during the time that in my opinion would dismantle public
education and that has been some of what I have seen.
We need to value our educators more and we have some
questions in North Carolina about whether or not we do that. We
pay them less than the national average and we are ranked as
one of the worst States in per pupil spending and so provisions
like supplement not supplant are really imperative. So without
it I am sure that North Carolina might make even deeper cuts to
education and we are very concerned about that.
If you can just expand a little more on the importance of
Federal funds being used to supplement instead of supplant
State funds, I would appreciate that.
Secretary King. Thank you. At the end of the day really
this is a question of ensuring that all students have access to
a quality education. And we know that in places where there is
disproportionate spending on affluent students and less
spending on high-needs students, it translates into a real
difference in students' experience in school.
For example in that CRDC data, the Civil Rights Data
Collection data, we found that there are 1.6 million students
who go to a school that has a school police officer but no
school counselor. If you have no school counselor in your
school, how are you going to support students' socioemotional
needs? How are you going to ensure that students have access to
good postsecondary planning?
We found that in many of the schools that served the
largest numbers of African American and Latino students, you
cannot even take calculus or physics. How are we going to
ensure diversity in the STEM fields and that students have an
equitable shot at STEM careers if their schools do not even
offer those classes? And so money certainly is not everything,
but in schools that have inadequate resources, that lack of
funding translates into a real lack of educational quality for
kids.
Ms. Adams. Yeah, thanks. So oftentimes students attending
Title I schools are students of color. These same students also
make up consistently underperforming subgroups. And so having
said that, do you truly believe that allowing States to choose
how to determine the success of subgroups will actually result
in the improvement of subgroup outcomes?
Secretary King. I think we really have to be vigilant in
the peer review process to make sure that States commit to
meaningful goals and targets for subgroups.
In the regulations, we try to set guardrails around that
process but peer review of the State plans will be critical and
vigilance in the part of the Department and ultimately in the
part of Congress to make sure that States are attentive to the
needs of subgroups and that where subgroups are struggling,
they meaningfully intervene. We know the history that there are
States that have long ignored the performance of subgroups,
States that prior to No Child Left Behind did not even count
their English learners in their accountability systems at all.
We have got to be vigilant. We think that we have set the
right guardrails in the regulations, but we also are interested
in folks' feedback on those.
Ms. Adams. So thinking about these same subgroups of
students without requiring specific summative ratings, how will
we hold schools accountable for improved outcomes for our
lowest performing students?
Secretary King. We think that summative ratings are
critical for transparency for parents, for teachers, and
ultimately for communities. Which schools are struggling and
need that additional support and also which schools are
excelling and can be models for other schools to replicate
their best practices.
We also require transparent reporting on each of the
indicators because we think it is important to have that
summative rating but also to have good information at the
school level and also the subgroup level and all of the
indicators.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
Chairman Kline. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Guthrie.
Mr. Guthrie. Hello, Mr. Secretary, and I agree that the way
you write the law and you implement and execute the law is what
our Founding Fathers intended. However, it is our
responsibility not just to write the law and let it go, it is
to have oversight to make sure you are complying with the
intent and the language of the law. So a couple of things.
One, today my commissioner from Kentucky is going to be
here to speak to us and one of the things I know he has
concerns with and others have concerns with is about the
expedited timeline required in your proposal. The ESSA says No
Child Left Behind's accountability provision officially end on
August the 1st of this year and in the statute it says that new
accountability systems will begin with the 2017-2018 academic
year. And it is clear that Congress intended for 2016-2017 to
be a transition year to allow States to develop their
accountability systems, yet your proposal effectively requires
accountability systems to be developed and implemented 2016-
2017, in this academic year. And I asked you about this
transition when you were before us in February and you
answered, and I quote, ``As we move into the 2017-2018 school
year, States will be well positioned to move forward on their
new plans.''
And I interpreted your answer as meaning you understood
congressional intent that accountability systems would become
active at the beginning of the school year. The initial
identification of schools would come at the end of the school
year based on those new systems. Unfortunately, what you
propose seems to contradict the statute and will short circuit
the important consultation process taking place at the State
and local level.
Can you make a commitment to us to revise this proposal in
the final rule to align the requirement with congressional
intent and ensure that parents and educators have the
opportunity to fully engage in the policymaking process?
Secretary King. Just to be clear on the proposed rule,
under the proposed rule that is currently out for comment,
there is no State that would need to have their accountability
system in place prior to 2017-2018.
The question is what will happen in 2017-2018? And we are
interested in folks' feedback on the timeline. We are eager, I
think, as the country is to ensure that we move beyond just
English and math test scores and graduation rates, that we
actually begin to use those other indicators. That is our
opportunity to expand the definition of educational excellence
and we would like to move quickly to that expansion.
I understand that there are folks who would like to extend
the focus just on those English and math test scores and
graduation rates, but we want to make sure we get to this
broader definition. But we are interested in folks' feedback on
the timeline and will try to listen carefully to the input we
receive.
Mr. Guthrie. My commissioner will be here this afternoon
testifying. I am sure you will have people here to hear
feedback and continue the dialogue.
One thing on the ``n'' size and I understand that there is
information prescribed by law that needs to be provided, the
disaggregation of data, we want to make sure that groups are
followed and we understand the statistics.
I understand that, but the statute allows the State to pick
that ``n'' size and this says as long as they meet the
criteria, you cannot prescribe the ``n'' size. It is pretty
clear on that and that is something that we debated and talked
about and we will not--I know you talked about one of my
colleagues about the information. We want you to have that
information because we voted to put into law that the country
gets that information.
We also voted to say that we want the States to determine
what that end size is and if they do not do it correctly then
you have some opportunity to do so, but it seems like you are
prescribing an end size of 30 up front, which I am not sure
where the statutory authority for that is.
Secretary King. Just to be clear, we are not requiring any
specific end size. What we are asking is when States submit
their plan, if they choose an end size above 30, they provide
information with respect to why they made that choice.
Mr. Guthrie. Do you give them deference if they have--
Secretary King. Again, the regulation preserves the right
of States to set their ``n'' size. Now, the peer review process
does create an opportunity for the plan to be reviewed and I do
think it would be important in terms of civil rights
protection.
For example, if a State were to set their ``n'' size in a
way that would ensure that students with disabilities would
never be counted in their accountability system, that would
clearly be problematic and I am sure that the peers and the
peer review process would respond negatively to them, but in
the regulation we do not set the ``n'' size.
Mr. Guthrie. Maybe I misread that, but 30 was the default
unless there was some--it did not seem like the States were
able to--and you are right, if the States set an end size that
did not comply with the rest of the law, there is something
that we need to address because we want that information as
well. That is why we voted to support the law and negotiation.
I only have 10 seconds left, so I will yield back. Thanks
for coming today.
Secretary King. Thanks.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Bonamici,
did you want to ask a question?
Ms. Bonamici. Yes, please, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kline. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Chairman Kline. Welcome to the
committee, Secretary King. I wanted to align myself with the
comments from Dr. Roe and others who have said that they have
perceived a real difference in visiting with schools and
teachers, educators, parents, students knowing that the changes
were made and the Every Student Succeeds Act that they were
desperately needing--and thank you for the work that you are
doing along with the Department to implement the Every Student
Succeeds Act and support States that are redefining their
assessment and accountability systems to meet their unique
needs. Thank you for your leadership and I want to follow up on
a question that was just asked by Mr. Guthrie.
I understand the need to prevent a gap in meaningful
interventions for students, but I am concerned that asking
states to identify schools for comprehensive and additional and
targeted support in the 2017-2018 school year could discourage
States from being innovative. And I know the Department will
work with States to modify their accountability systems and add
indicators as data from districts becomes available, a process
that could take several years.
Nonetheless, asking States to implement accountability
systems in time for the 2017-2018 school year seems to run the
risk of hampering innovation, so can you please discuss the
Department's alternatives? Is there a way that we can both
prevent a gap in support for students and give States the time
to put in comprehensive accountability systems that make good
use of new data?
Secretary King. One important point about the proposed
regulations is that States would be able to use the 2017-2018
year as a planning year for those schools that are requiring
comprehensive intervention, but I think ultimately, as I have
said, we are interested in feedback on the timeline questions.
I think we, like many educators in schools, have a sense of
urgency about broadening the indicators that are used for
accountability and to the extent that States are prepared to
move more quickly to incorporate an indicator like chronic
absenteeism or there are some States that have put forth a very
meaningful effort to try to reduce disproportionate
suspensions, for example, for students of color.
If States are in a position where they want to introduce
those indicators, we would like to see them do that more
quickly so that they are moving beyond just the English and
math scores and graduation rates. But we are interested in
feedback and want to work with States and districts to think
through the best timeline.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, and I am glad that the
Department's proposed regulations for accountability would
direct schools identified for comprehensive and additional
targeted support to evaluate resource inequities, but the
proposed rule appears to focus on only two examples of
discrepancies and resources: per pupil expenditures and access
to out of field and inexperienced teachers.
So considering these inequities is important, of course,
but I wonder whether States and districts would not consider
other important inequities, for example, access to advanced
coursework, technology, arts and music. How will the Department
encourage States and districts to identify and address a broad
array of resource inequities?
Secretary King. Yeah, we tried in the regulation to balance
wanting to make sure that States do the things that they must
and then also offering additional options and there is ``may''
language around things like advanced coursework and access to
preschool, which we think is a very significant equity issue.
But again, this is a place where we are open to feedback with
always trying to strike the right balance around State and
local flexibility and real transparency around resource equity.
And we are interested in feedback not only from States, but
from civil rights community and advocacy organizations as we
think through the right resource equity indicators.
Ms. Bonamici. Terrific, and the Every Student Succeeds Act
is clear that participation rates for a statewide assessment
needs to be a factor in accountability systems and the
Department's proposed rule for accountability systems would
give the States four options for incorporating data on
participation.
One of the options allows States to develop their own
proposals for including participation rate in accountability
systems. For States that pursue this route, how will your
Department assist them as they contemplate actions that are
perhaps less punitive but no less effective in ensuring that
all students are counted?
Secretary King. I think this issue of the participation
rate is very bound up with how do we ensure strong parent
understanding of the role of assessments in schools? And I
think there are clearly reasons that folks have seen over the
last decade.
An increase in assessments, not the federally required
assessments, but increase in assessments in schools that have
driven a very legitimate set of concerns, that is why the
administration proposed a testing action plan and has put
forward guidance and helped to offer places where folks can use
existing Federal resources to support reductions in assessment.
That is a feature of the Every Student Succeeds Act that we
want States to take advantage of and districts to take
advantage of so that they right-size the assessments and where
they can, replace maybe low-level bubble tests with higher
quality performance-based assessments. Those kinds of efforts
we think will help ensure that States and districts are able to
comply with the law's expectation that all students will
participate in the assessments.
Ms. Bonamici. As someone that has been talking about fewer,
better assessments for a long time, I look forward to
continuing to work with you on that and I yield back the
balance of my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kline. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Byrne?
Mr. Byrne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, it is
hard to remember all of us up here. I am going to remind you
that I am a former member of the Alabama State Board of
Education for 8 years. All four of my children attended the
public schools in the State of Alabama. All four of them
attended a magnet school in the city of Mobile, a large urban
school system. So I have a great deal of interest in this and I
have very high expectations for the performance of our public
schools with regard to every student.
When you were here before the committee in February, I
asked about the phrase of the new law ``consistently
underperforming and whose responsibility it is to define the
term.'' I also wrote a follow-up letter on March the 1st that
you responded to on June 17th, 3-1/2 months later.
Now, in your response, you pointed to the proposed
rulemaking. When you were here before, you did not really
answer my question and after reading the proposal, I think I
understand why.
When you were here before, you did say to me, ``I am
committed to working with this committee, committed to ensuring
that implementation is consistent with the letter of the law.''
I would say to you, Mr. Secretary, if you are committed to
working with the committee, taking 3-1/2 months to answer my
letter is not consistent with that remark.
The letter of the law says the meeting of ``consistently
underperforming'' is to be determined by the States.
The letter of the law also says that you are prohibited
from prescribing ``the specific methodology used by States to
meaningfully differentiate identified schools under this
part.''
Now, taken together, the law prohibits you from
constraining State flexibility around the definition of
``consistently underperforming,'' yet your proposal does
exactly that so help me.
Why would you violate the statute of your proposed
rulemaking and give a definition when the Every Student
Succeeds Act prohibits you from doing so and requires you to
leave that up to the States? Why did you do that?
Secretary King. To be clear, in our regulation,
``consistently underperforming'' is defined by the State, using
goals and targets that the State would set.
Again, our role, we believe, is to try to gather feedback
and input, which we did. And based on that input, we put
forward a proposed rule that is now out for comment, but we
were careful to comply with the letter of the law and
``consistently underperforming'' is left to States to define
with their own goals and targets.
Mr. Byrne. Well, I would ask you to go back and look at the
rule because I think it does prescribe and I think you are
setting yourself and the Department up for a lawsuit that you
would lose.
I am not going to file it, but somebody will. And you
talked earlier about legislative intent. I am giving you
legislative intent right now. You need to go back and look at
your rule because it clearly violates the letter of the statute
and prescribing.
It needs to totally leave this up to the States and in any
way that you prescribe to the States how they make that
determination, you are clearly in violation of the statute. So
I am asking you to go back and look at your rule, hear what a
member of this committee that is a strong proponent of this law
is telling you, and I think if you do, and you are a smart man
and you are a fair man, if you go back and look at it fairly,
you are going to see that you are in violation of the statute.
I do not want you to be in violation of the statute. I do
not think you want to be in violation of the statute. But when
you have a consistent pattern of this administration and
putting out regulations after they have been warned that you
are in violation of the statute as written by Congress and then
somebody has to file a lawsuit, here is what happens when a
lawsuit is filed. You spend a lot of resources, the people that
file the lawsuit spend a lot of resources, and every penny of
those resources is a penny that did not go to educating a
child. And I want, and I think you want, every resource we can
bring to bear to educate children in this country.
Somebody deep in the bowels of your Department or some
smart lawyer that is working with you is taking you in a
direction that the statute clearly prohibits you from going.
And as someone that wants this to work, I am telling you, go
back and look at your rule because I think you are in violation
of the statute.
Secretary King. I appreciate the feedback. We will look at
the rule, but, again, I just want to underscore that States
will set the goals and targets from which the determination of
consistently underperforming will be made.
Mr. Byrne. We are going to hold you to that and I yield
back.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Rokita?
Mr. Rokita. I thank the chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I want to continue on this line of questioning regarding your
rules, but a different rule, supplement versus supplant. You
recall that under the old SNS rules, supplement not supplant
rules, that we differentiate between targeted schools and
school-wide schools, and targeted schools have 3 specific tests
and for schools that were less than 40 percent low income,
correct? And the school-wide group was for schools that were
more than 40 percent of kids--yeah, more than 40 percent
schools.
And you acknowledge, don't you, that under ESSA, the Every
Student Succeeds Act, that the methodology for distributing
State and local funds to schools is just to be fair and
equitable without regard to receipt of Title I funds? So we got
rid of the targeted test in ESSA and had the school-wide test
for all of SNS.
Secretary King. It is written with the core requirement
being that the Federal dollars are, in fact, supplemental.
Mr. Rokita. Right, but it is the school-wide test now
applied for all SNS. Your rule has a methodology applied to it
that calls for Title I schools to receive at least as much
input in per pupil funding as the average amount of per pupil
funding received by the districts non-Title I schools.
So we specifically put prohibition in the new law that says
you are not to apply methodology, yet you do. So how are you
not in conflict, directly in conflict, with our legislative
intent, similar to what Mr. Byrne was pointing out?
Secretary King. So just to clarify on the timeline, so we
have a proposed rule that was offered in negotiated rulemaking,
feedback was given during negotiated rulemaking, the rule was
suggested, and we continued to receive input and feedback and
do not have currently a rule out for public comment, but--
Mr. Rokita. Does that mean that--
Secretary King. We anticipate issuing a regulation on this,
but I just want to be clear that there is not currently a
proposed rule that is out for comment.
Mr. Rokita. They are negotiating rulemaking and you do
realize that you are in direct conflict with--
Secretary King. So with respect to negotiating rulemaking,
we do not prescribe the methodology. In fact, the methodolgy is
left to districts, districts could use, for example, a weighted
student funding formula approach.
A district could use an approach that is based on the
traditional assignment of staff model of budgeting, so we do
not prescribe the methodology. What we were trying to do in the
rule that was discussing negotiating rulemaking is ensure that
districts are indeed using the Federal dollars in a way that is
supplemental and not backfilling State and local
responsibilities.
Mr. Rokita. Do you agree that the only requirement we have
in the Every Student Succeeds Act regarding the methodology and
distribution of SNS funds is that the fair and equitable and
agnostic as to a school's Title I status, that was the intent?
I was in a conference committee and I helped write this law.
That was our legislative intent.
Secretary King. But clear history on supplement not
supplant is--
Mr. Rokita. I am not talking about history, I am talking
about this new law.
Secretary King. Including in the new law, the language in
the new law is quite clear on the notion that the Federal
dollars will be supplemental and in order to--
Mr. Rokita. The methodology around that, the only
requirement is that we have to be agnostic as to a school's
Title I status and otherwise be fair and equitable.
Secretary King. If the district is using the Federal
dollars--
Mr. Rokita. Correct.
Secretary King.--in a way that supplements rather than
supplants local and State obligations.
Mr. Rokita. But you understand that you are defining what
``supplement'' means, though, through the methodology that it
be fair and equitable. That would take in the school-wide test
and applying it to all of SNS. And in doing that, the only
requirement is that a district's method for allocating State
and local funds be agnostic as to the school's Title I status,
agreed?
Secretary King. Not if they are supplanting. I think there
are two things. There is the question of the district's
methodology, which is up to the district, and then there is the
question of whether or not the Federal dollars are being used
in a way that is, in fact, supplemental and that is the plain
language of the statute----
Mr. Rokita. It seems like the Department and you, sir, are
maybe using some comparability attempts to backdoor SNS, I
mean--
Secretary King. No, because comparability is focused around
services and with supplement not supplant, we are focused on
the allocation of funds.
Mr. Rokita. I do not think so. I think the CRS document--
are you familiar with Congressional Research Service's
document? On that it explains how your supplement not supplant
proposal is really a backdoor proposal to amend the statute's
comparability provision, and they walk through legislative
history of that provision during Congress deliberations on what
became ESSA. And they said a relevant part, ``ESSA did not
alter the existing statutory language and prohibits the use of
staff salary differentials when determining expenditures per
pupil from State and local funds. Nevertheless, the proposed
regulations appear to effectively require LEAs to use actual
teacher salaries for SNS purposes despite the fact that ESSA
did not address it in this manner.'' And I have to yield back.
Chairman Kline. Gentleman yields back. Mr. Walberg.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for being here, and the discussions to the
questioning that is going on is important for us to do.
Northwest Ordinance stated about education, religion, morality
acknowledged being necessary to a good government and the
happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall
forever be encouraged.
That is not in the U.S. Constitution. That is in the
Michigan Constitution, taking high priority for the necessity
of having schools and education encouraged so that people will
be happy and productive. And so a discussion today as we have
passed ESSA is really an attempt to roll back the power of
authority, direction, control of the Federal Government, and to
really give, as we have talked about at least in a bipartisan
way, the front quotient back, the exciting quotient back, to
educators in the classroom, school board members on the board,
parents with means, and aspirations for their kids to know that
education is a neat, beautiful, fun, and productive priority in
civilization and that the greatest control will come from with
the creativity from the local schools, teachers in the
classroom, school boards, parents who love their kids, State
boards of education.
And so today as we are discussing this, it is becoming at
least evident to me that this is a creative tension that we
have when we have a powerful entity in the U.S. Department of
Education, arguably wants to do right by kids in schools, but
has a philosophical position to push and a pattern that has
been developed over the years of, whether you believe it or
not, we want to make sure that what we want to happen in our
schools happen.
That is human and I think the reason for our discussion
today in this hearing is to say the priority goes back to the
States and that is what our law did. So along with that, that
would be a creative tension that we have and will continue to
have and hopefully make it productive.
To continue on similar questioning again and develop it
further, Mr. Secretary, the statute requires States to assess
95 percent of students while protecting the right of parents to
opt out and granting States the sole discretion for determining
how the test participation requirement should be factored in
the State's accountability system.
In fact, the statute explicitly prohibits you from
prescribing how the State factors the requirement into the
system, at least as I read it; that your proposal requires
States to take at least one of four prescribed actions against
schools that missed the requirement. Your proposal also
requires schools that missed the requirement to develop a plan
to address the failure and requires school districts with large
numbers of such schools to also develop an improvement plan.
This may be indeed a laudable goal, but the law is a law,
so let me ask you this question. Can you provide the committee
the specific statutory language that gives you this authority?
Secretary King. Let me first say, Congressman, as a former
high school social studies teacher, I appreciate the quoting of
the Northwest Ordinance. It does not happen often.
Mr. Walberg. I am a Neanderthal, I guess.
Secretary King. No, no, no, I appreciate it and I want to
say I strongly agree with your point on importance of the
flexibility in this law around the design of the accountability
system and in the design of the interventions which is, I
think, also an important area of flexibility for States.
On the question on participation rates, we often--
Mr. Walberg. What is your statutory authority?
Secretary King. Yeah, I just to make sure in your framing
of the question.
Mr. Walberg. I have 23 seconds, so.
Secretary King. I will be quick. In the four options that
are described in the regulations, one of them is for the State
to determine how it will approach the enforcement. The other
three are offered as means by which the State could enforce the
95 percent accountability requirements which is in the statute.
And States could choose the fourth option, which is State-
determined and that would go through peer review. So we were
careful, as I have indicated before, to ensure that our
regulations are consistent with the letter of the law--
Mr. Walberg. I still did not hear your specific statutory--
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr.
Curbelo?
Mr. Curbelo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for being here this morning. I want to especially
appreciate the Department's focus on English language. It was a
major priority for me and the reauthorization, and you have
certainly made some comments with regards to ELL students here
today, but I want to ask you today about students in foster
care. The Department has been active on this topic in recent
weeks and I have had two specific questions, the first on the
proposed regulation and the second on the guidance issued this
morning.
The statute clearly lays out a process for school districts
and child welfare agencies to develop an agreement for paying
transportation costs for students in foster care who remain in
their schools of origin. Contrary to that language, the
proposed regulations require school districts to pay for
transportation costs with no mention of the process established
in the statute. Please explain why the Department ignored the
statutory text and is proposing to require school districts to
cover transportation costs.
If you do not think the Department ignored the statutory
language, let us know how this provision complies with the
clear language in the statute. And again, I think this is an
issue where the legislation, the intent is for States to have
the flexibility to work this out with their own agencies,
school districts, and child welfare agencies.
Secretary King. So, importantly, I think the foster youth
provisions of the law are very important. And it is clear that
foster youth are at risk and part of the reason they are at
risk is because they are often moving between schools. And so
the evidence is clear that students are better served when they
can have educational stability or where there would have to be
transitions that those transitions are smooth. And the guidance
that was issued today we not only describe our interpretation
of the law, but we also offer examples of best practice around
the country, including places, States that have set up very
clear dispute resolution processes, but where the guidance
points us towards collaboration between the LEA, the school
district, and the child welfare agency to both ensure that they
are evaluating the best interest of the students, and then
creating a reasonable plan for smooth transitions and
transportation where necessary.
In the proposed rule, we are looking for feedback and
comment and we expect to get it and the guidance. Again, what
we tried to do was point to exactly what you were describing,
the need for LEAs and child welfare agencies to work
collaboratively. The proposed rule offers some more specificity
on processes to resolve those disputes. We are looking for
feedback and input, and we certainly appreciate yours.
Mr. Curbelo. So you believe that, ultimately, States will
have that flexibility where the child welfare agencies and the
school districts can collaborate and figure out amongst
themselves how the transportation costs will be addressed?
Secretary King. I think the hardest question is if there is
a dispute, ultimately, how will we ensure that the student has
educational stability? And we try to offer a path in the
regulation on which we are looking for feedback. And the
guidance we try, just as you described, to underscore the
importance of that collaborative relationship and also describe
examples of effective dispute resolution processes that are in
place around the country.
Mr. Curbelo. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary, and I strongly
encourage you to pay attention to the feedback and this comment
period because I think it is pretty clear that all over this
legislation, we have been focusing on State flexibility,
trusting States and local communities to make the best
decisions for these kids. And I think especially when it comes
to kids in foster care, which we all want to make sure that
they have access to a quality education, we want to give the
States the opportunity to figure out the solutions that work
best for the kids in those States and in those communities.
So thank you again for your presence and your time here
this morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Allen.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Secretary. It is good to have you here this morning.
Mr. Secretary, ESSA requires schools with one or more
subgroups performing at or below the level of all students and
any school identified in the State's bottom 5 percent to be
identified for targeted support. The statute then requires
certain schools to be further identified for comprehensive
support if they fail to adequately improve within ``State-
determined number of years.'' And as has been mentioned several
times before, ESSA also prohibits you from prescribing the
methodology used by States to identify schools, yet your
proposal requires schools I just described to be identified for
comprehensive support within three years if they have not
improved.
How is this proposal consistent with the plain language of
the statute which says the length of time is to be State-
determined and the Secretary is prohibited from prescribing the
identification methodology?
Secretary King. Well, here the question is what happens if
a school has been identified for targeted support and the
subgroups are not making progress, so it is a bit different
from the original identification.
States will need to develop a process for how they will
respond when schools are not making progress with those
subgroups and the intention is that States will intensify their
State-selected interventions based on evidence to ensure that
those subgroups improve their performance.
Mr. Allen. But again, the questions was, it looks like we
have two methodologies here, the law versus the rule. And I did
not quite understand exactly, I know the States are responsible
for dealing with this particular issue, but your rule applies
that the Federal Government is responsible for dealing with
this particular issue. There seems to be a conflict here.
Secretary King. I do not think so. I think the statute
ultimately requires that States increase the intensity of the
intervention when the intervention is not effective in
improving subgroup performance and the regulations are trying
to enforce that requirement of the statute. But again, these
regulations are out for public comment. This is a place where
we are interested in feedback from States and districts as well
as civil rights groups and others.
Mr. Allen. And that is important because obviously Congress
writes the laws and, as you mentioned earlier, and what has
amazed me in my short time here is, where we have intent on a
law, that somehow it gets totally misinterpreted by the time it
gets to one of the Departments. So I think it is great to have
you here this morning and it is great to have this discussion,
but I also think that we definitely need to follow up on these
conflicts with the staff and our staff to make sure that we
implement this law the way it was intended. And I yield back.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Courtney,
you are recognized.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for being here. And again, I applaud the chairman
for holding this hearing, I think looking back at the 114th
Congress, getting the ESSA done and signed into law I think is
probably going to be viewed as one of the more unexpected
pleasant surprises in a good way in terms of the accomplishment
here. And as I am sure my colleagues have said, the action now
has kind of migrated to the State level. And in Connecticut,
there are working groups under the commissioner hard at work in
terms of trying to, again, align State education policy with,
again, the flexibility with some guidance from the Federal
Government. So I just want to report to you that is full speed
ahead in terms of what is going on there.
One issue which I think is very important in the State of
Connecticut is that as a result of desegregation lawsuits,
Sheff v. O'Neal, Connecticut was, I think, very aggressive in
terms of moving towards magnet schools as a solution to racial
isolation, particularly in the city of Hartford, which I live
about 17 minutes away from on the highway. And as the New York
Times reported, there actually has been really encouraging
progress made in terms of the magnet school model in terms of
integrating--my daughter actually went to one of those schools
that followed in the Sheff v. O'Neal, and I just can tell you
that it was a life-changing experience. It is not something her
parents pushed her into. She kind of found it on her own and so
I personally would have liked to have seen us been a little
more aggressive about helping promote magnet schools,
particularly because the city of New London is now going all
magnet and there is a provision that allowed transportation
costs and some other expenses that make this still a bit of a
challenge for local communities and States.
And I am just sort of wondering, I never talked to you
about your perspective on that and just sort of asked you how
you see that approach, and at least the signals that the
legislation sent out to be supportive.
Secretary King. I mean, I am very pleased with some of the
adjustments that were made to the magnet school program and in
ESSA. I think that will help make it easier for communities to
take a magnet school's approach.
I would love to see us go further. That is why the
President proposed the Stronger Together Initiative, which
would be $120 million. That is in his 2017 budget to support
locally led voluntary efforts around school diversity. And I
think Hartford's magnet school program is, in many ways, a
great national model that folks should take a close look at,
both quality of options that are being offered to families that
are diverse and the two-way feature of the Hartford approach,
that students are able to go from suburban communities into
urban schools and from urban schools into suburban communities.
I think that is a very promising approach.
We are also looking at how we can use other grant programs
to encourage, again, voluntary, locally led efforts. And my
hope is that some States will use the school improvement
flexibility that they have under ESSA to pursue school
diversity strategies because we know they can significantly
improve academic outcomes, graduation rates, particularly for
the students that are most at risk.
Mr. Courtney. I appreciate your last comment there which is
that the batting average for these new models has not really
just been about sort of the racial composition of the student
body. It is also about academic achievement and a number of
magnet schools score higher than any other either private or
public high schools and K-8 schools in the State of
Connecticut. So again, I just want to again tell you a lot of
us are rooting for the Department to continue that work in
terms of promoting what I really think is a solution to the
future success of this country using the magnet school model.
And with that, I would yield back.
Chairman Kline. Mr. Grothman?
Mr. Grothman. Thank you for coming over here. When you were
here in February, I asked you a question about teacher
licensure and, more importantly, about teacher evaluation. We
mentioned that in the Students Success Act, we believe that we
prohibited you from any involvement in teacher evaluation
systems.
At the time I asked you about it, I said, ``Can we be
confident now that those days are gone since that is what the
new statute said?'' And you said, ``Yes, we are very clear that
the law puts teacher evaluation in the hands of State and
districts.''
Nevertheless, you have now come back with a regulation that
states that your Department requires States to establish the
definitionary (sic) guidelines for defining ineffective
teachers. The proposal also requires States to annually
identify the percentage of teachers in each category with its
ineffective definition.
Now, just on the face of it, this looks completely contrary
to what you told us in February, not to mention completely
contrary to what is in the statute.
What is your statutory authority for this proposal? And if
there is no statutory proposal, please explain how you expect
the State to meet this requirement without establishing a
teacher evaluation system.
Secretary King. The statute requires States to provide
information on equitable access to quality teachers. We
require, in the regulation, for States to define those terms as
they comply with statutory requirement to report on
disproportionate access to those quality teachers. They could
not report if they did not define those categories.
Mr. Grothman. So you are going to assure us that you have
no concern about how quality teachers are defined?
Secretary King. States are required to put forward-- their
definitions, and that would be a part of the--
Mr. Grothman. You are never going to question what their
metric is?
Secretary King. The proposal that they will submit as part
of the State plan goes to peer review, which is not the
Department, but it is other States and experts who will engage
in peer review of the State plan.
Mr. Grothman. Does the State of Wisconsin have to worry,
regardless of what they use for teacher evaluation, that you
will ever question that?
Secretary King. Well, if they were not complying with the
statute if they were not ensuring that students have equitable
access to quality teaching. Yes, I would hope the future
Department would ensure that the law is enforced.
Mr. Grothman. You are kind of dodging this a little bit
here. The question is, okay, the State of Wisconsin says such
and such is a quality teacher, the question is are you ever
going to question the definition of a quality teacher as
defined by the State of Wisconsin?
Secretary King. They have a set of terms that they have to
define. For example, if they have teachers who are teaching
outside of their license area, is it possible that in the
future the Department might find that a State is evading their
responsibility under the law to ensure equitable access to
quality teaching? Yes, that is possible.
Mr. Grothman. Obviously you collect tons of data, more data
than I think you have any business constitutionally collecting,
but nevertheless you do.
As maybe you know, when I look at a lot of the problems in
society, including problems of poor educational performance, I
blame a lot of it at the breakdown of the family. And I just
wonder when you collect data on all these students and you
collect data on race, which I am not sure what that--do you
collect data on family background of the kids? And if not, why
not?
Secretary King. There may be an IES study in which those
kinds of issues are looked at, but I do not believe that ESSA
has requirements around that.
Mr. Grothman. I know it does not have requirements. I am
saying in your tenure as Secretary, has there ever been a
suggestion that maybe we ought to at least do a limited study
on the family background of students and seeing if some family
backgrounds are more conducive to educational achievement than
others?
Secretary King. There may be IES studies that address that.
Mr. Grothman. I mean, you have just reams of data that you
are collecting here. I just wonder whether you or anybody else
in your Department has ever thought that might be an
interesting topic to look into.
Secretary King. I will look at whether there was an IES
study in that subject and I will be sure that we get that to
you.
Mr. Grothman. Okay, I yield the remainder of my time.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Carter?
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
King, Mr. Secretary, for being here. We appreciate it very
much.
Mr. King, what I wanted to talk about was what the
Department of Education has proposed with respect to backend
checks on the weighing of indicators for State accountability
systems.
The statute that was passed in ESSA requires the States to
establish the criteria that the schools must make to exit
certain identification categories, but after having my staff
read your proposal and after I read some of your proposals, it
just seems like they go well beyond the scope of the statute by
requiring those criteria to include improvements on the State's
academic indicators. That appears to contradict what the
statute's prohibition was against the Secretary prescribing
exit criteria.
Could you explain how you envision States and school
districts implementing this portion of the proposal?
Secretary King. Yeah, just to be clear again, we do not
prescribe the weights or percentages for the indicators. The
function of the backend checks is to ensure implementation of
the statute, which requires that the academic indicators have
substantial weight and then further requires that the academic
indicators must have a much greater weight than the other
indicators, so the backend checks are a way to do that. But as
I have said, they are out for public comment and we look
forward to reviewing the comment on those and I am sure you
will get from States, from districts, from civil rights
organizations, from parents, and others.
Mr. Carter. Again, I want to make sure that the Department
is not overstepping their bounds from what we intended for it
to be through this legislation.
Can you assure me that the Department is not going to go
contrary to what is in the statute?
Secretary King. Yes, we have been careful throughout this
process to ensure that the regulations comply with the law. We
also have been careful throughout this process to listen
carefully to the feedback that we have received from
stakeholders and will continue to do so.
Mr. Carter. So you have received the feedback? Are you
continuing to receive the feedback?
Secretary King. We chose the areas for regulation and
guidance based on feedback we received. We have had over 200
meetings, we have received comment from over 700 individuals
and organizations. We held 2 public hearings in which there are
over 100 folks who testified and we continue to gather
feedback.
Now, the accountability regulations are out and State plans
and data reporting regulations are out for public comment. That
public comment period closes in August and we will review the
feedback that we have received.
Mr. Carter. Have you reviewed any of it yet? Do you have
any indication of what are the concerns?
Secretary King. I mean, we had a very strong concern,
particularly from the civil rights community and organizations
that are focused on kids who are at risk, that enforcing the
requirements in the law for what I would characterize as civil
rights guardrails is critically important, including the
language that says that the academic indicators must have much
greater weight and substantial weight.
Mr. Carter. Okay, I am just concerned, okay? I want to make
sure that you are not overstepping the bounds by what we
intended for it to be through this legislation and I want you
to assure me and the committee that the Department's proposals,
that they align with the statute and that we are not going to
have you back here trying to ask any more questions about what
is going on. I do not want another example of the Department of
Education overstepping their bounds.
Secretary King. I appreciate that. We are being very
careful to ensure that the regulations that we propose comply
with the law.
Mr. Carter. Okay, fair enough. Just full disclosure, I want
to make sure we are on the same page here of what the intent
was and what it is that you are doing.
Secretary King. Understood. Again, I want to underscore
that we have been very careful that the regulations we proposed
comply with the law.
We also are being very careful to gather feedback and I
want to make clear that these proposed accountability
regulations are a draft that is currently out for feedback and
we are going to listen carefully to the feedback we receive.
Mr. Carter. Okay, thank you, Dr. King. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Now I yield back.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Bishop?
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for your time and your testimony today. Building on
my colleagues' questioning, in particular the questioning by
Mr. Allen and Mr. Carter, I just would reiterate what those
others have said.
I talk to educators and parents all the time. They are very
concerned about the students' learning environments and are
very attentive to this new law that we have passed, the ESSA.
And they are skeptical in many ways because they do not believe
that even though the law was written in such a way with such
plain language and unambiguous language, that we will be able
to implement it in a way that was intended.
That government agencies tend to take liberties with
whatever law is passed by Congress and we have seen that up and
down the chain, not just in the Department of Education, but in
other departments as well, in other agencies as well. So there
is a bit of skepticism here and I am wondering, you have
indicated that you have got the regulations out right now for
comment. When you have completed those, are you prepared to
come back in here with your final draft of those regulations to
review them with us?
Secretary King. I mean, I will certainly make myself
available for committee meetings like this one. I think of this
as a collaborative effort. I believe the law was passed through
a collaborative effort between bipartisan leadership and
Congress and the President and the Department, and we want to
continue that collaboration.
Mr. Bishop. In good faith, I think that is a wise position
to take and one that I think is good for this committee as well
as all of us have a sense of skepticism as to whether or not
the law that we passed is the law that would be implemented.
I have confidence that you are here today in good faith and
I look forward to further dialogue. I had one specific question
as well with regard to the ESSA, Mr. Secretary. It requires
States to include the 4-year adjusted cohort graduation rate as
an indicator in their accountability system. The statute also
requires States to report annual data on the 4-year adjusted
cohort graduation rate.
The statute does not, however, require States to use the
graduation rate when calculating which high schools are
identified for comprehensive support based on low graduation
rates. The statute leaves the calculation of the graduation
rates for identification purposes, as Mr. Carter had indicated,
earlier to the States.
In addition, as you know, the statute prohibits you in
particular from prescribing the specific methodology for
identifying schools.
How is your proposal that we discussed today that has been
outlined consistent with the plain language, the unambiguous
language of the statute in the prohibition against prescribing
methodologies?
Secretary King. The key with graduation rates is to have a
graduation rate indicator that is present in all schools and
the only graduation rate indicator rate present in all schools
as required by ESSA is the 4-year graduation rate. That said
the regulation provides for States' ability and their plan to
create exceptions for schools that might serve new arrival
English learners, schools that might serve students with very
significant severe disabilities, schools that might serve
students who dropped out and are now returning to school.
But again, the 4-year graduation rate is the rate that is
required for all schools to report under ESSA.
Mr. Bishop. You believe when you are talking about the
inception that you are speaking of--give you, despite the fact
that there is a prohibition against prescribing methodologies,
that fits within that exception that you are speaking of?
Secretary King. Yes, and we are not prescribing the
methodology, but we are using a data point that is available
for all schools as the starting place for the State plan.
Mr. Bishop. Okay, thank you, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Chairman, I
yield back.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Thompson?
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Secretary, when you
testified before the committee in February, you said, ``The law
rightly shifts responsibility for developing strategies to
support the highest need students in schools to State and local
decision-makers and away from the one-size-fits-all mandates of
No Child Left Behind, and it creates opportunities for States
to reclaim the goal of a rigorous, well-rounded education for
every child.''
I could not agree with your words more at that point and I
appreciate hearing that perspective, yet your proposal would
require State accountability systems to provide a single
summative rating for each school.
How is this proposal not a one-size-fits-all mandate that
will stifle State efforts to reclaim the goal of, your words, a
``rigorous, well-rounded education''? And can you commit to
upholding your original commitment to this committee when you
publish the final rule or are you veering away from that
original promise that you made?
Secretary King. We believe that the draft rule reflects
that commitment. Again, we are going to take comment and try to
respond to the comment that we receive.
On the single summative rating, States have flexibility
with how they would approach that. They could use an A-F
approach as some States do today. They could use a numerical
index as some States do today or they could use a categorical
approach as many States do today.
They will need such an approach in order to identify the
bottom 5 percent of schools clearly, but we also require that
States provide information to parents and teachers about all of
the accountability indicators so there will be robust
information about all of the accountability indicators. And
this is a place, again, where we will take public comment and
try to be responsive to the comments we receive. But it is
clear that in order for the law to work, parents and educators
and the community need to have a clear understanding of which
schools are struggling and a need of more support and which
schools are excelling and can be models of best practice.
Mr. Thompson. I think the intent of Congress was very clear
and, in the end, this is very bipartisan, as you know, as we
finished.
It tends to work that way in that process here through
refinement and I think at all costs, we want to avoid a cookie
cutter, a one size fits all. Does that really describe what No
Child Left Behind became, especially in the outer years beyond
the authorization time for it when it was allowed to continue?
And we really, really need to make sure that we are providing
that type of flexibility. And I think it really comes down to,
and I have talked about this among my colleagues here, it is a
question of trust and, in the end, members of Congress
demonstrated in a bipartisan way, bicameral way, which is
really unusual these days, a trust of the States and the local
governing boards. And we expect that you will do the same thing
and that your department will do the same thing to have that
trust.
I wonder, the recent issue came to my attention. Last week,
your accreditation staff announced it was recommending to
terminate the Federal recognition of the Accrediting Council of
Independent Colleges and Schools, and the National Advisory
Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity is meeting
right now to decide their independent recommendations. It is
somewhat related, a little bit outside the ball park here
today, but I just wanted to take the opportunity to ask you on
this since you are here and I appreciate you being here.
Now, these actions are only recommendations. However, as
you have the ultimate authority to decide the fate of ACICS, as
you know, the ACICS is one of the Nation's largest accreditors
responsible for accrediting approximately 250 schools, serving
320,000 students, and terminating the recognition of an
accreditor this large would be unprecedented. And, therefore, I
am concerned that the Department is ill-prepared to respond to
the potential impacts of this move.
Is the Department prepared with a plan to assist goals if
they lose accreditation? And does the Department have the
capacity available to process a change of accreditation
requests for schools that seek alternative accreditation?
Secretary King. So as you indicated, there is a potential
that I would hear an appeal in the ACICS case, so I cannot
comment on the specifics of ACICS. I will say that the time
that the recommendation was made by Department staff, we posted
information for the institutions and for students about
potential consequences.
There is a process over the next several months for
deliberation by Masiki for an appeals process and then there is
a final agency determination on an accreditor, there is an 18-
month period in which schools can seek an alternative
accreditor and the information we posted provides details on
that.
Mr. Thompson. Should this go into a final recommendation by
you then, you would certainly allow the schools to give him the
sufficient time to find a new accreditor to make that
transition.
Secretary King. Yes, we believe that schools that are doing
a good job by their students will be able to manage
transitioning to another creditor in that 18-month period any
time an accreditor were to lose its authority, not just
specific to ACICS. But we can certainly have staff follow up
with you on that information that we will provide.
Mr. Thompson. That would be very good. I would love to talk
offline with you about how schools are doing great by their
students but some are having problems with their accreditors.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired. All
members have had an opportunity to engage in the discussion. I
want to thank you again, Mr. Secretary, for your time here
today and your engagement with each of the members.
I would underscore that there is a theme here that I am
sure was not lost and that is that we put a lot of effort,
bipartisan effort, a lot of struggle as you mentioned and
included in the administration in getting the language of the
statute very, very clear. And so we will continue to be
watching. We would like to stay engaged with your staff as we
go for it to do everything we can to make sure that the
regulations that the Department is required to publish are not
just sort of, like, semi-consistent with but exactly consistent
with the lettering and intent of the law. So thank you very
much.
We are going to let you go back to work and start taking a
look at all that feedback from those regulations and we thank
you very much for being here today.
Secretary King. Thank you.
Chairman Kline. We will be seating the second panel here
momentarily.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, can we submit to the record a
letter from the Tri-Caucus on accountability to the Secretary?
Chairman Kline. Without objection.
[Recess]
Chairman Kline. Welcome to our second panel today. It is
now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished witnesses and I
recognize Mr. Guthrie to introduce our first witness.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
Today I am going to introduce the Kentucky Commissioner of
Education, Steven Pruitt, as a witness for today's hearing. In
September of 2015, the Kentucky Board of Education unanimously
voted to hire Steven L. Pruitt as Kentucky's sixth Commissioner
Of Education.
Commissioner Pruitt came to Kentucky with extensive
background in standard assessment accountability. He started as
a high school chemistry teacher in Fayetteville, in Tyrone,
Georgia, and later served as a science and math program manager
and director of academic standards with the Georgia Department
of Education, and he was associate State superintendent for
assessment accountability.
Most recently, Commissioner Pruitt served as a senior vice
president for ACHIEVE, a national nonpartisan, nonprofit
education reform organization based in Washington. He is a
native of Georgia, but he is a proud Kentuckian. And
Commissioner Pruitt holds a bachelor's degree in chemistry from
North Georgia College, a master's in science from West Georgia,
and a doctorate from Albany University.
I think he is sitting next to an Alabama Crimson Tide
graduate so we will see how that works. Commissioner Pruitt and
his wife are parents of two children and their son attends
University of Colorado and their daughter is a high school
senior attending public schools in Kentucky. And welcome to
Washington, thank you.
Chairman Kline. Thank you, Mr. Guthrie. I will continue now
with the rest of the introductions. We would like to avoid any
conflict down there.
Ms. Cassie Harrelson serves as a math teacher on a special
assignment with the exceptional student services for Aurora
public schools in Aurora, Colorado. In this role, she built
special education teachers' capacity to increase student math
achievement through a student-centered instructional coaching
model.
Ms. Harrelson also serves as an affiliate faculty at Regis
University where she instructs teachers on using formative
assessments to support linguistically diverse students in their
language acquisition.
Ms. Daria Hall serves as the interim vice president of
government affairs and communications with the Education Trust
in Washington D.C. Previous to this, Ms. Hall served as the
organization's director of K-12 policy development and worked
as an analyst for the Texas Legislative Council in the
Milwaukee office of U.S. Senator Herb Kohl, so quite a bit of
geographical movement there.
And Dr. David Schuler serves as a superintendent for a
township high school in District 214, blue ribbon high school
district, located in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Prior to
this, he served as a Wisconsin teacher, coach, student
activities and athletic director, principal, and
superintendent.
Dr. Schuler also serves as president for AASA, the School
Superintendents Association. Welcome, all.
Now, I ask our witnesses to please raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Chairman Kline. Let the record reflect the witnesses
answered in the affirmative. Just a reminder in our lighting
system. We will keep track of it right here. When you start
your testimony, you will have a green light. When you get down
to after 4 minutes, a yellow light will come on, please start
thinking about wrapping up. When a red light comes on, please
wrap up as expeditiously as you can. And then when you finish,
members will have 5 minutes to ask questions and engage in the
discussion.
We will start with Dr. Pruitt. You are recognized for 5
minutes.
TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN L. PRUITT, COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION,
KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Mr. Pruitt. Chairman Kline, Representative Scott, and
members of the committee, I would like to thank you for
inviting me to testify today on the recent efforts to implement
the Every Student Succeeds Act.
As chief State school officer for the Commonwealth of
Kentucky, I am excited about the future of education in our
State under this new law, any opportunity to build on the
significant progress that Kentucky has made to date.
We have already started that work by engaging on a broad
spectrum of education stakeholders. We have held 11 regional
town hall meetings and one virtual town hall with a total
participation in excess of 3,000 people.
Kentuckians have told us what they value in their schools
and how they define schools' success. We have listened and we
are using those comments to shape our work under the ESSA.
The alterative promised by the ESSA is a welcomed departure
from the prescriptive nature of No Child Left Behind and I
appreciate the continued focus on closing the achievement gaps.
In Kentucky, we are working to move all children to higher
levels of learning while also determining the root cause of
achievement gaps which we believe stem from opportunity gaps
and access to rigorous, high-quality learning opportunities. I
commend the U.S. Department of Education for its quick response
in drafting regulations and releasing them in a timely manner
for public comment, but when one examines these regulations,
they contain so many restrictions and requirements, State
choices remain severely limited.
The proposed regulations stifle creativity, innovation, and
sovereignty of States to govern their own education policies.
Additionally, the volume of complex regulations are in direct
opposition to Kentuckians' desire for a simple system that
provides a broad view of scope performance.
Implementing a new accountability system is a monumental
task. Despite our best efforts, I am concerned about the
timeline and the State's ability to implement a new quality
system that takes full advantage of ESSA.
While we understand accountability under the new law would
start at the beginning of 2017-2018, the proposed regulations
would require using data available in 2016-2017 generated under
the current accountability system to identify schools for
comprehensive support and improvement, possibly even prior to
U.S. Ed's approval of the new system. As a result, schools will
not accurately be identified.
We would suggest continuing the support, the concurrent
priority schools, through the 2017-2018 school year and
identifying new schools for the 2018-2019 school year based on
the measures of the new system.
I believe that is the intent of ESSA. While the proposed
regulations claim to replace NCOB's narrow definition of school
success, requiring a single summative score goes beyond what
the statute calls for.
The proposed regulations limit States' ability to take a
dashboard approach which is broader, fairer, and a more
accurate representation of school performance and more likely
to lead to school improvement.
In Kentucky, we found that a summative score leads to
ranking and creates an unhealthy sense of competition rather
than collaboration that supports school improvement. We also
found in some instances it becomes more about adults chasing
points and trying to game the system to manage the appearance
of performance, rather than actual performance.
Finally, I am concerned that the U.S. Ed's recent
regulatory proposal in Title I supplement not supplant will
exceed the statutory authority under ESSA and will promote
harmful consequences for students. So when the Department
publishes its proposed rule of supplement not supplant, I urge
you to review it closely and encourage that it informs and
conforms to congressional intent and avoids the unintended
negative consequence promoted by the Department's earlier
proposals in this area.
There are many other points in the proposed regulations
that I have addressed in my written comments and that Kentucky
will be addressing in its formal comments submitted to U.S. Ed.
Now more than ever, what States need to implement ESSA is
honest two-way communication, consistency, and to be trusted to
make good decisions.
We need a commonsense approach that supports a quality
system of assessments, accountability, and school improvement
measures that will be implemented with fidelity and will
promote doing what is right for students. However, a compliance
mentality prevails.
For example, even though our NCOB waiver allows Kentucky to
give a no reference test in science, recently U.S. Ed told us
that the science test was not aligned with the current--
required to give a science test not aligned with current
academic standards and the poor performance levels that are not
truly reflective of student learning or we must face
consequences in order to meet the compliance element.
I could not in good conscience comply with this and as a
result, we have been placed on condition for our Title I, Part
A, and IDEA Part B Federal fiscal year 2016 grant awards all
because we wanted to do what was right for students and not
waste money on a meaningless test.
We have now quality tests that are scheduled to be
implemented in the same year as the ESSA. Kentucky is committed
to fully realizing the congressional intent of ESSA.
If this is all true and this represents a new day in
education for America, States must have the support to take
action based on quality and what is best for students and move
away from compliance mentality.
The Commonwealth of Kentucky looks forward to revised
regulations that empower States with the freedom to plan,
innovate, design, and implement quality education systems that
will ensure opportunities for all students and promote the
pillars of equity, achievement, integrity within the education
policy in Kentucky.
As a final reminder, quality implementation is critical and
I would remind you that no great education initiative ever
failed in the vision stage. It failed in the implementation
stage.
[The statement of Mr. Pruitt follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Kline. Thank you. Ms. Harrelson, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF CASSIE HARRELSON, MATH TEACHER, AURORA PUBLIC
SCHOOLS, AURORA, COLORADO
Ms. Harrelson. Okay, thank you, Chairman Kline, and members
of the committee, for inviting me to join you today. My name is
Cassie Harrelson and I am currently a math teacher on a special
assignment working with special education teachers in Aurora
public schools in Colorado.
In my role, I am in classrooms daily, collaborating with
teachers to best support students with disabilities. My entire
career in education has been spent working with students who
are behind their peers on grade level academic standards.
I have also worked in diverse environments from Aspen, one
of the State's top performing to Aurora, which will enter its
fourth year of a priority improvement plan later this summer.
Students at my school district speak over a 130 different
languages and our free and reduced lunch is at 71 percent.
Every child, regardless of family income, ethnicity, or
home language deserves to attend a school with opportunity.
This belief is what drives me daily. It is also why I am here
today to speak on the promise of ESSA and not only for our
students in Colorado, but across the Nation.
NCOB had its strengths, such as the use of disaggregated
data to help problem-solve around closing achievement gaps, but
it was a one-size-fits-all approach that did not work for my
students.
The passage of ESSA last December offered a new promise, an
explicit shift from the top-down NCOB style decision-making to
bottom-up State and local control. Finally, educators closest
to the students they teach would determine how to best help
students succeed. ESSA offered flexibility at the local and
State level and required engaging stakeholders to assess
community assets and challenges to drive score improvement. We
were also promised relief from NCOB's excessive focus on
standardized testing that was not timely or meaningful to
educators or students.
In order to ensure the appropriate intersection of local,
State, and Federal policy that is best for our students, all
stakeholders must be engaged, including educators, students,
parents, and community members.
As strong as I feel the legislation is about giving local
leaders back their voice and the accountability process, I am
worried that extensive areas dictated under the proposed
Federal regulations take away my voice. For example, the
accountability regulations tell us that Colorado must have a
summative rating system with three levels of proficiency
overall and with each subgroup of students. I know this
requirement is nowhere in the law and something we were
supposed to decide at the State level.
The proposed regulations also seem to upset the balance to
find legislation and return the focus to standardized tests by
diminishing the importance of the student and school support
indicator. We shift back to a failing system that is overly
focused on tests as opposed to truly helping students achieve.
As an educator in a school with a high number of English
language learners, I am also concerned about the proposed
regulations that set expectations for attainment of English
language proficiency within a period of time after students'
identification. This timeframe should be determined by
educators, not an arbitrary number.
In Aurora, some English learner students arrive with
comprehensive educational backgrounds, but some arrive with
interrupted or limited formal schooling. We must respect
educator discretion on this issue.
Finally, I am concerned about the proposed regulations that
dictate consequences for districts that fail to meet the 95
percent requirement for testing. While the law retains the
requirements to ensure that students are participating in the
test, the proposed regulations go beyond by dictating the
actual consequences that schools must face.
Instead of punishing districts, we should be helping
districts find solutions to solve the lower participation rate
and our assessments. And again, how to handle lower test
participation rates was supposed to be determined at the State
level and once again the Department is taking away that
opportunity.
I ask that you honor your commitment to our students and
ESSA by respecting the legislation to include educator voice at
the local and State level as we know our students best. It is
time to get those with actual teaching experience the
opportunity to have a say.
This work ahead of us is extensive but imperative so that
every child, regardless of family income, ethnicity, or home
language has an opportunity to attend a great public school and
succeed.
[The statement of Ms. Harrelson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rokita. [Presiding] Thank you for that. I realize by
the look in some of the witnesses' faces that I probably should
introduce myself. I am Todd Rokita, chairman of what we
colloquially call the kindergarten to 12th grade subcommittee
on education, so welcome to each of you.
Ms. Hall, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF DARIA HALL, INTERIM VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT
AFFAIRS AND COMMUNICATIONS, THE EDUCATION TRUST, WASHINGTON,
D.C.
Ms. Hall. Thank you, Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Scott,
and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to
share my perspective on implementation of the Every Student
Succeeds Act.
This perspective is informed by the Education Trust's long
history of working alongside educators, advocates, and
policymakers to close gaps and opportunity and achievement. Let
me begin as we always do at the Ed Trust with some data.
In the year since we have had Federal requirements for
annual testing, full public reporting, and serious
accountability for the results of every group of children,
results in the national assessment of education progress and
high school graduation rates are up, especially for low-income
students and students of color.
Now, of course, policies themselves do not close gaps and
they do not raise achievement. Only the hard work of educators,
students, and families can do that. But smart policy is a
source of urgency to address problems that would otherwise
languish and it is critical that we do not lose that urgency
because, despite gains in the data, the data is also abundantly
clear that far too many young people are still not getting the
quality education they need and deserve.
So what does this all mean for ESSA implementation? In
short, we need to pick up the pace of improvement, not back
off. Thankfully, the law you crafted contains a number of
important levers that can help with that, including statewide
standards and assessments aligned with the demands of college
and the workplace, accountability systems that expect more
progress from groups of students who have been behind and
prompt action when any group is struggling, and rich public
reporting on academic outcomes, and opportunities to learn for
all groups of students.
Implementing these levers must be done in a way that is
responsive to unique State and local contexts and in a way that
builds on the insights of educators and communities. But the
need for State and local decision-making does not mean that
from now on the U.S. Department of Education should simply
recede into the background. Indeed the Department has the
authority and the responsibility to ensure that the equity
goals of ESSA are honored.
I will note here that the consensus reached on the
assessment regulations during the negotiated rulemaking process
is an important example of both confidence in the regulatory
process and the need for clarification with the statute.
Looking to the Department's proposed regulations on
accountability, public reporting, and State plans, they clarify
and bolster the law's equity provisions in many important ways
including the requirement that all indicators in the
accountability system be desegregated by each group of students
so schools cannot sweep the performance of some students under
the rug; clarity that supergroups cannot take the place of
individual student groups so progress among one group cannot
match stagnation or declines for another, the prioritization of
academic outcomes so the main purpose of schooling stays in
focus; the expectation of full participation in State
assessments so schools cannot return to the old practice of
opting lower performers out on test day; and the requirement
that all schools receive a summative rating so parents get an
at a glance view of school performance.
Now, it is important here to dispel this emerging narrative
that we can have either summative ratings or rich public
reporting through dashboards, but not both. That is simply not
true. Summative ratings can and should exist alongside rich
public reporting of all of the data that goes into the ratings
and measures beyond those ratings, too.
There are also areas where the proposed regs must be
improved. For example, the definition of consistent
underperformance for subgroups is essential to assuring that
struggling students get the support they need, but some of the
options for this definition undermine the expectation that when
any group and any school is not making process, those students
must get support. Instead, the option signal that it is okay to
act only in some schools where students are struggling and
leave students and others to languish.
The importance of rules to clarify and bolster ESSA
requirements has been made clear. In recent months, States have
begun their implementation efforts. Already, there have been
suggestions that would undermine the intent of the law, such as
including indicators that cannot be disaggregated or using
supergroups in place of individual student groups.
We will work alongside partners in the business, civil
rights, and disability communities to remain vigilant in
ensuring the equity provisions of the law are upheld and we
urge leaders in Congress and the Department to do the same.
Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Hall follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rokita. Thank you, Ms. Hall. Mr. Schuler--excuse me,
Dr. Schuler, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF DAVID R. SCHULER, SUPERINTENDENT, TOWNSHIP HIGH
SCHOOL DISTRICT 214, ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, ILLINOIS
Mr. Schuler. Thank you very much. I would like to extend my
deep appreciation to Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Scott, and
the entire Committee on Education and Workforce for your
tireless work to complete the reauthorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act.
This new law holds States and school districts accountable
while still allowing significant flexibility. Tight on goals
and loose on means is a well-researched philosophy that
correlates positively to student achievement.
Under SO, the role of the Federal Government is one of
supporting and strengthening our Nation's public schools, not
prescribing and dictating to us, and as it realigns the balance
of authority so that the Federal Government can maintain it is
appropriate limited focus on closing achievement gaps while
empowering State and local education leaders to make the day-
to-day decisions that most directly impact the school systems
we lead.
State and local education agencies now have an opportunity
to examine schools with the inclusion of a nonacademic
indicator. This represents a dramatic shift from the NCOB focus
on snapshot testing to a more comprehensive, well-rounded
system to assess school quality. In February, at the National
Conference on Education, AASA, the school superintendents'
association, launched a new research-based multi-metric
initiative to redefine what it means to be college and career
ready, called ``Redefining Ready.'' That could have never
happened under the waiver process or NCLB.
Under ESSA, you have given us permission to dream and lead
and transform public education in this country, and we will do
just that. I applaud the Department's proposed regulation
leaving the end size determination to the States.
I would say that I am concerned about the proposed
regulation regarding the 2-year timeframe for States to
identify consistently underperforming schools as statutory
language in ESSA states that decision should be made at the
State level.
It is my belief that the determination of a timeframe
should be made as part of a broader context of the State
accountability system.
I am equally concerned about proposed regulation 201.8 that
requires a State plan to include one summative rating for at
least three distinct rating categories for each school.
ESSA does not require each school to be rated by a single
indicator. States should be allowed to create balanced
accountability systems and move away from reducing our schools
and teachers down to one single letter or number.
Another concern I would note is the proposed regulation
that would require States to identify schools in need of
support or improvement for the start of the 2017-2018 school
year.
States are just developing their implementation plans now.
How can schools be held accountable this coming school year for
metrics not yet developed.
I would suggest that it is unfair to students, teachers,
parents, and our communities to be judged and rated by unknown
metrics.
While I am very pleased that the proposed regulations did
not attempt to define much more than regarding the weight of
academic indicators and nonacademic indicators, I do have a
concern with the extent to which the proposed regulations
include restrictions that indirectly ascribe weights to those
academic indicators.
While I strongly support the right of students in foster
care to have transportation to their school of origin, I do
oppose the proposed regulation regarding the transportation of
foster children. The Department's proposal deems that when it
comes to transporting children in foster care, if the child
welfare agency in the district cannot reach an agreement, it is
the district's responsibility to cover transportation costs. In
these challenging fiscal times, it is deeply troubling that
this proposal would create a new financial burden for many
districts, especially in a manner that at such direct odds with
what ESSA requires.
ESSA's carefully crafted statutory language requires a
collaborative approach between child welfare agencies and LEAs,
and provides that if there are additional costs for
transporting students in foster care, the district will provide
transportation for the child under three specified conditions.
I believe the proposed regulation is in direct conflict with
the statutory language of ESSA that was negotiated in a very
collaborative and purposeful manner, and I would suggest that
there is really no need for the regulation as the statutory
language is very clear.
I would note that I have strong reservations about the
Department's proposal regarding supplement not supplant.
I am concerned that the proposal being advanced by the
Department blurs the lines between two distinct but equally
important statutory provisions. Supplement and not supplant and
comparability, both target at maintaining the integrity of
Title I dollars.
Finally, I would urge the Department to use restraint in
issuing regulations, but playing a critical role in supporting
State and local implementation of assets through the sharing of
best practices and technical assistance.
The sheer volume of new practices, programs, and approaches
that State and local education agencies will be considering and
adopting means that States, schools, and school districts will
need a clearinghouse to share what is working, what is not
working, and what we learned along the way. Imagine the
Department being a repository for what is working in our
Nation's schools in regards to career pathways, coding, closing
the achievement gap, grade level readiness, a digital
curricular transformation, resource efficiencies, and other
issues facing U.S. schools.
America's teachers and school district leaders will not let
you down. I applaud the committee's work on ESSA and am
confident that our public education system will be better as a
result of the Every Student Succeeds Act being the law of the
land. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Schuler follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rokita. Thank you, Dr. Schuler. I would like to start
with you, recognizing myself for 5 minutes. You are hitting on
your last comments there on something that I was trying to get
out of Dr. King, but I myself ran out of time in the
questioning, and that is using SNS as a backdoor to
comparability to come in. You mentioned that just now in your
testimony, Can you go into some more detail there about your
concerns? Because you remember that in the Every Student
Succeeds Act, we specifically said our comparability formulas
or intentions were not changing from the old law to the new
law, yet they want to change comparability it seems.
Mr. Schuler. It is a concern because comparability allowed
us the opportunity to not have to focus intently on ensuring
salaries, were included as part of the supplement and not
supplant.
Mr. Rokita. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Schuler. And so we cannot dictate who applies to our
schools. And so if that regulation ends up really happening,
the end result of that will end up being forced transfers and
that is a huge concern.
Mr. Rokita. Forced transfers because isn't it true that the
most significant part of any school budget is personnel cost?
Mr. Schuler. Absolutely.
Mr. Rokita. So if you are going to balance that through
comparability, then you are transferring teachers from one
school to the other?
Mr. Schuler. Correct, which may not be a good fit for that
school.
Mr. Rokita. Why not?
Mr. Schuler. Because you could have a school, let's say,
when I was superintendent in central Wisconsin, I had a school
that was an elementary school, Title I, focused completely
around technology. The skill sets of the teachers in that
school looked very, very different from a traditional
elementary school.
Mr. Rokita. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Schuler. And as a result, the people that applied to be
in that school setting had a very specific skill set. If I
would have been forced to ensure that the salaries of all of my
elementary schools for Title and non-Title would have been the
same, I would have been forced to move people with the skill
set I needed in that school out--
Mr. Rokita. Right, or hurting the Title I students that are
supposed to be helped by all this.
Mr. Schuler. Correct.
Mr. Rokita. So your testimony is that the Department's
proposal here is actually going to--it has a strong potential
of hurting low-income students that Title I is supposed to
help?
Mr. Schuler. It definitely could.
Mr. Rokita. Yeah. Ms. Harrelson, thank you for your
testimony as well. Ms. Hall talks about the ability to have
summative indications as well as the retrieval of rich data as
well. You were sort of negative on the summative aspect of the
data collection. Can you go into more detail there? Because I
agree with you.
Ms. Harrelson. So you are asking on data collected on
students?
Mr. Rokita. Yes, and use your microphone, please.
Ms. Harrelson. Okay, you know, I think that we have to be
cautious of the data that we are looking at, and a lot of times
that when we are looking at some of the summative measures,
they are not fully aligned to what is actually happening in our
schools because of the nature of some of the standardized
assessments that we were using so--
Mr. Rokita. Could you give examples?
Ms. Harrelson. Some examples?
Mr. Rokita. Yeah.
Ms. Harrelson. Well, if you look at some of the assessment
items that are used on tests that were allowed to create
standardized assessments, they do not always get at that rich
understanding that we really want to see that kids are showing,
so I support, as a teacher, more of a formative local level
type of assessment where teachers can really use that to guide
next instructional steps. And I just always err to being a
little bit cautious that a lot of the data that we receive from
these assessments really cannot be used to guide instruction
and improve outcomes, so we have to be really cautious of too
much emphasis on that.
Mr. Schuler. Thank you, Ms. Harrelson. Dr. Pruitt, you were
critical in your testimony of the accountability proposal
proffered by the Department. Do you want to go into any more
detail there?
One point specifically, were you witness to the--not a
witness on, but were you witness to the first panel with Dr.
King?
Mr. Pruitt. I was.
Mr. Rokita. Do you want to comment on that panel at all in
terms of accountability systems or supplement versus supplant
or anything else you observed?
Mr. Pruitt. I think it would be fair to say that his
interpretation of some of his regs are different than ours. I
think--
Mr. Rokita. ``Ours'' being who?
Mr. Pruitt. Ours in Kentucky in particular. Of course, we
have been supported by the Council of Chief State School
Officers as well.
We have had a lot of conversations but for us around the
accountability in particular, it is easy to say, of course,
2017-2018 will be the first year because that is what ESSA
requires. However, actually the fact that we have to identify
schools in 2016-2017 for 2017-2018 means that you actually are
perpetuating the old system for at least another year.
We in Kentucky actually have two schools that because they
were caught in that same issue when our waiver went through, we
have two schools that are at the same time listed in our top 5
percent and bottom 5 percent because the systems were
significantly enough different. And what it does is it creates
a distrust of the system itself which means that people really
do not pay attention and we do not see the kind of movement
that we really need to see.
Mr. Rokita. Thank you and final question. Do you have any
reason to believe that Dr. King or the Federal Department of
Education know you or your kids better than you do?
Mr. Pruitt. Absolutely not. My kids are my kids.
Mr. Rokita. Mr. Scott, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess this is for
everybody. I just wanted to know if there is any situation
where it would be good policy to withhold school improvement
resources and technical assistance to help improve a school
just because a school is actually improving one school climate
equality indicator, but is still failing to perform for the
children? Should we be able to withhold school improvement
resources?
Anybody think that we ought to be able to withhold school
improvement resources just because they may be improving on
one, but failing on many others?
Ms. Hall, on the participation rate the statute requires a
meaningful factor. Assessment participation rates requires
States to meaningfully factor in assessment participation rates
for their accountability systems.
How do you require a school-level consequence if they miss
their participation rate?
Ms. Hall. Absolutely. I think it is important to remember
why that requirement is there in the first place, because of
the value of the statewide annual assessments is to provide a
common measuring stick that applies for all students across
classrooms, schools, and districts.
If we do not have full participation either because
students are opting out or because, as history has shown,
schools are opting out low performers on test day, we undermine
the value and credibility of that information.
When it comes to ensuring that test participation is clear
in the school accountability system, it can happen in a number
of ways, including making that clear in the rating as a school
that was previously going to get, for example, an A could
become a B. There are options that are allowed for States, but
I believe that it is incredibly important to make sure that the
value of the information in the accountability system is not
undermined by having only some of the students participate in
the assessment and if there is low participation, that must be
clear.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Mr. Pruitt, you have been working on
accountability equality and equity and made the point that just
calculating a summative score does not spur improvement. How
can you use--well, two things. One, how do you ascertain the
bottom 5 percent that have to be addressed and how do you use
the assessment to actually spur improvement?
Mr. Pruitt. So I would say to your second question first,
the reason I am in support of a dashboard is that it actually
allows us to desegregate what I would consider school behavior,
so we disaggregated student achievement in the past with No
Child Left Behind and that was absolutely fantastic. In doing
so, we allowed schools to sort of hide other things, in
particular not guaranteeing a whole, well-rounded education for
all students. So for me, the dashboard allows us to actually
take a look across.
And I realize that with our school report cards we have had
extra data other than the summative score, but in Kentucky,
people do not look past the summative score. They look at that
and sure they can say you are better than 80 percent of the
other schools, but what is it about that really means that you
need to be improving?
And for me, a dashboard really casts a spotlight on
assuring that we are actually focusing on the right things. It
is more of a laser-like focus to ensure that we actually see
improvement as opposed to a scattershot approach. As to the
bottom 5 percent, this is where I think the States actually
meet that opportunity for us to be able to make that
determination.
For us, I have got 166 people on eight different committees
who are focused on building a completely new system. And part
of that is us determining how we would actually identify that
bottom 5 percent in a way that holds people's feet to the fire,
that ensures that kids are going to graduate literate,
numerate, and that they have a well-rounded education. But, at
the same time, I think that we are at a point, in Kentucky
anyway, where we need a little bit more of an innovative way to
do it than just simply applying numbers to it.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Mr. Schuler, you have suggested that
a multi-metric accountability system is important. The ESSA
encourages that, so I want to ask you what the draft
regulation, including guardrails, to ensure low performance of
traditionally underserved students is not masked, to make sure
that your overall score does not mask the subgroups.
What multi-measure system do you envision with a low-
achieving subgroup but a high graduation rate, for example? How
do you make sure that you are not submerging the
underperforming group?
Mr. Schuler. That is a great question. That is one of the
things I love about the system that we have developed and the
use of the dashboard as well.
You develop the architecture of your dashboard for each
different indicator, including graduation rates, grades,
success in algebra II, for example, because we know that is
such a gateway course. You build all that up and as you
populate, you can desegregate by each student group per
variable. That is why it gives you such a more well-rounded
comprehensive understanding of what is happening in that
school.
And then, if you still have your annual test, if those
lines are going in the same direction and both up, that tells
you one thing. If they are both going down, it says the States
are really going to need to engage. And if you are going in
opposite directions, we really need to dig into that date and
see what is going on.
So I love the idea of developing that multi-metric approach
that--research-based, but then populates the dashboard that
allows really to drill down into the data to improve
instruction opportunities for kids.
Mr. Rokita. I thank the gentlemen. The gentleman's time has
expired. Dr. Foxx, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to give a very
strong thank you to our practicing professional witnesses here
today for your strong, positive commitments to educating the
young people in their purview.
I think it comes across very, very strongly that you care,
that you understand the subjects, and that you are really
committed to serving the children that you serve, so it is so
refreshing--it is not refreshing, it is great to hear it. I
hear it a lot when I am at home from people in your same
position, so I know there is a lot of good going on in
education in this country. And the good that is going on is
being done by people like you, and so I appreciate you very
much.
Dr. Schuler, I want to ask about the foster care
regulations you raised in your testimony. I know Dr. King said
the Department has also released guidance on that subject just
this morning. Could you talk more specifically about the
current process between school districts and child welfare
agencies and what impact that the Department's proposal would
have on you?
Mr. Schuler. Yes, so thank you for that question. And I
have not obviously had a chance to see what came out this
morning, but right now what happens is we sit down with the
child welfare agency and we engage in a conversation about how
can we best serve the needs of that child.
The concern with this regulation is it really precludes the
child welfare agencies from being compelled to participate in
that conversation because at the end of the day, if they do not
support, we are going to have to come up with the money. And
did I think back to my first superintendents outside of Madison
and I had a student homeless under McKinney-Vento, very
appropriate, we had to provide transportation.
I was in a very, very small district outside of Madison.
The student's home district was Milwaukee.
I paid every day for students to be transported, over an
hour and 15 minutes one way, back and forth. And in that
district where I had 80 teachers at the end of the year, that
total cost was over a teacher. And so I am very concerned about
the impact that this proposed regulation could have, especially
on brothers and sisters, colleagues of ours, and smaller rural
districts.
Ms. Foxx. Now, thank you very much for that response.
Dr. Pruitt, in your written testimony, you talked about the
restriction the Department was proposing to place on State
flexibility to define ``consistently underperforming''. I think
it is pretty clear you have been talking about this already in
the State of Kentucky, but would you expand on that just a
little bit?
Mr. Schuler. Absolutely. As some of my colleagues here have
even already mentioned, the fact that we have been so focused
on math and reading for such a long time and not to say that we
still should be, but at the same time there are other factors
that are equally as important.
For me personally, and I think we are hearing this more and
more in our State, it is the issue of opportunity. So for us,
when we look at our persistently low-scoring schools, yes, we
need to look at the math and reading scores, but we also need
to see what they are offering. The days of offering algebra I,
algebra I lite, and algebra I low carb need to end.
We need to actually start guaranteeing every kid is getting
the education they need and that every kid is actually getting
a level of expectation that will only serve to help them be
successful.
So for us, I want us to be able to really have an open
playbook where we can say, you know, your kids are doing
horribly in achievement, but I think we are going to find some
that are doing decent in achievement, but they are doing
horrible in what they are offering, especially our underserved
populations. So I want to have more of that latitude that we
can really take a good hard look at that school behavior that I
mentioned earlier and guarantee that every kid is getting the
offering of high expectations and education that they deserve.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much. For anybody who is taught,
we all know that it is so important to teach at the level that
the students are able to perform or at least, I mean, that is
what we understand.
And Ms. Harrelson, I want to make a particular thank you to
you for being a math teacher. Every time I meet great math
teachers, I say you are worth your weight in gold. We need a
lot more of you in the schools, so thank you for doing that as
well as having such a well-rounded perspective. I yield back.
Mr. Rokita. I thank the gentlelady and associate with her
remarks. Ms. Bonamici, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you to all of the panelists. I want to align myself with Dr.
Foxx' comments about your commitment and I can sense that as
well. Your commitment to education and your commitment to
making certain that the Every Student Succeeds Act is
implemented in a way that does provide that opportunity to all
of our students.
I am not an educator, but I spent 16 years as a very
involved public school parent. It got to the point where my
kids said, Mom, do you always have to be at school? But I had
the opportunity to spend a lot of time volunteering and then
served on our State legislature on the Education Committee and
then came here to Congress where I find myself still going back
to school on a regular basis and visiting and talking to
students and teachers.
And Ms. Harrelson, in your testimony you talk about
providing relief from extensive time focused on standardized
testing and use of assessment to guide meaningful instruction.
I cannot tell you how many times I heard that over the years
since No Child Left Behind passed and that focus on testing.
But the high stakes associated with the testing were what I saw
as incredibly problematic and I share in your hope that the new
education law will spur better use of assessments, fewer and
better assessments. I worked very hard to get a provision in
the law to allow states and districts to eliminate duplicative
tests and give educators more time to plan and design
instruction based on data from high-quality and timely
assessments.
So, Ms. Harrelson, can you discuss how the Department and
State leaders and local school districts can work together to
make sure that assessments do provide useful information to
teachers and families, including the statewide assessments that
were authorized in the legislation by partisan members of
Congress? And then I am going to ask Ms. Hall to respond to
that as well.
Ms. Harrelson. Okay, so I have had the privilege of working
on some of our former assessments and I do think we started out
with the idea of making sure we really have educators involved
in these conversations. And this goes at the local, the State
and the Federal level, so I think it is really important that
we continue to really look at how we are developing our
assessments because it is really educator voice that really
narrows kind of what this actually looks like in the classroom
and the type of information we would want back to be looking at
how we are doing.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. My State of Oregon is a pretty
early adopter of adaptive testing in America. There is a
tremendous potential there.
Ms. Hall, you want to discuss that as well? Because I share
your perspective, it is important to assess students. We just
need to make sure we are doing the right thing with those
assessments.
Ms. Hall. Absolutely, and I will start by saying we
appreciate your leadership on efforts to support States and to
confirm States to audit assessments and eliminate low-quality,
duplicative, unaligned assessments. We know that there are too
many assessments in some of our districts right now and that is
a waste of money and, worse, it is a waste of time both for
teachers and for students, and we appreciate your support on
that.
That said, it is important not to go too far, right? We do
need that consistent measure from an assessment that is aligned
with State standards to be able to tell educators, tell
parents, to tell policymakers how every student is doing
relative to State-set standards and that allows to identify
both of those students, those schools, those districts that are
struggling to target resources and support to those areas. It
also allows to identify consistently students, schools,
districts that are doing an exceptional job, particularly with
low-income students, students of color, English learners, and
students with disabilities.
Those are areas that we both need to celebrate and we need
to learn from because they are getting the kinds of results of
all students through high levels that is the goal of all of our
work here.
Ms. Bonamici. I do not mean to interrupt here. I want to
get another quick question in. Dr. Pruitt, I want to talk about
the alternative diploma for students with the most significant
cognitive disabilities. The alternative diploma described in
ESSA has some very specific requirements.
Our intention is not to pigeonhole students into
alternative diplomas, but to provide a pathway to meaningful
diplomas. So how does your State plan to develop a high-quality
pathway for the students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities and will you be working to prevent this pathway
from becoming a loophole that prohibits students with
disabilities from achieving a regular diploma?
Mr. Pruitt. Yeah, absolutely. We have to protect our
students that are most vulnerable, but we also need our
diplomas to mean something.
I do not want to ever have a child walk a stage in Kentucky
and get a diploma that is not even worth the paper it is
printed on, so we are going to work really hard with our
special ed community, our exceptional children community, our
civilized community to put some pretty hard places in there to
say this is exactly what we are expecting with these diplomas.
We will work really closely with our districts, but we are
going to do our level best to ensure that nobody can game the
system in such a way that the adult gets the benefit when the
student does not.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. My time is expired, but I am going
to follow up with Dr. Schuler in writing about the
transportation of foster students.
Mr. Rokita. Mr. Guthrie is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it, and
thank you all for being here. First of all, let me point out
that when we are talking about and discussing this, the three
people that have concerns with the rule are practitioners and
public education.
They are not a think tank, they are not policy in the high-
level policy. People who want children to learn, they want to
make the public school system learn. And we can talk about
other stuff later, but public schools, investment in the public
school system, and those are where the concerns are coming
from. So I just wanted to point that out.
And like the N equals 30 discussion where the Secretary
said if we cannot accomplish all these things the law requires
when the law allows you to set your own number, but if we do
not send it from Washington, they will not be able to comply
with everything else, and it assumes you guys do not know what
you are doing and that is really frustrating because it assumes
that a few smart people in a room in Washington, D.C., figured
it out and it works for everybody.
The next example is trying to find the bottom 5 percent.
The Secretary said you could not do it without a summative
rating. That is what he said earlier and you are saying I have
got committees of people across our great Commonwealth trying
to figure out how to set up a rating system that gives you what
you need according to the law, but also gives you what you need
to make sure that kids learn better. And I think that is the
beauty of our country and what you guys are doing is taking
your ideas and bringing them up. And that is exactly what we
tried to do in a bipartisan way, and my friend just said that
she fought for certain parts to be in there.
This was really a collaborative effort and we are afraid
that the rules are coming down and taking away what we wanted
to have is you guys to have your input in. So one thing that
kind of struck because you kind of answered some of my
questions I was going to ask is that you said that under the
old system and new system, because of the year, you had one
that was top 5 percent and in the new system it would say
bottom 5 percent or how does that work--I mean how do two
systems generate such different results? What are the details
of that?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, in the old system actually they were in
the priority, they were in the bottom 5. And so because of the
exit criteria, they had to stay in that going into the new
system, so those two systems overlapped in such a way that they
did not allow a reset button or a refresh button if you will.
So under the new system where there was a much greater view of
quality of the programs and not just the achievement, but
actually the quality of the programs, what we found was that
these schools are actually some of our best performers when you
look at them in a broader range of criteria, so as a result
they are stuck.
Now, they will probably come off of the priority list in
the next year, but because they were stuck there to start
within the old system, it really just created a sense of
distrust in that system by the fact that when you look at any
list from Kentucky, you see these schools as distinguished and
as priority.
Mr. Guthrie. When you went across our Commonwealth and had
town hall meetings, tell me about that process, and people
showed up for those town hall meetings, practitioners, parents
concerned. It was really well attended and well promoted and
you did a really good job with it, so talk about that process.
And then what happens when you have a system that the people
just do not trust?
Mr. Pruitt. Sure. So we decided early that the thing that
we had to do was be out in the field. If we really wanted to
develop a system that reflected the values of Kentuckians, I
need to go listen to Kentuckians. I cannot make good decisions
sitting in Frankfurt. It is one of the reasons that I think it
is important that States have the authority to do this because
you cannot make those decisions in Washington. So we had 11
town halls and all of our town halls, we never had less than
about 200 and we had over 300 in several cases, so we had well
over 3,000 people that showed up to these. We had parents,
teachers, superintendents, local board members, legislators,
community members, civil rights members that came and told us
what they valued in the education system, so we took that.
We videoed each one, we took notes on each one, we have
posted those up for everybody to be able to see.
Mr. Guthrie. So what did you learn> What have you learned
from that you have implemented or tried to bring in to--
Mr. Pruitt. We learned that Kentuckians want a simple
system that makes clear what performance is and not the
appearance of performance. We learned that the education of the
whole child must be critical and not just focused on math and
reading.
We learned that we have got to cut down on competition
between our districts and embraced the idea of our children our
Commonwealth so that we actually perpetuate a system where the
districts are willing to work together to ensure kids get what
they need as opposed to I have to better than you for me to get
my better writing.
Mr. Guthrie. And like I said, when you have all these town
halls of people out there, I may think I--personally I say how
can you rate a school if you do not have a summative rating?
But you may come with ideas and say, wow, I never thought of
that. And that is the beauty of what this law is trying to do.
So we have people who really care about what they are doing,
passionately about what they are doing, and trying to be
innovative and it helps everybody.
Mr. Chairman, I just ran out of time. I yield back.
Mr. Rokita. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman's time has
expired. Mr. Allen, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Dr. Pruitt, I am
fascinated by your--I am only reading your testimony, but you
seem to be ahead of the curve as far as what I understand. A
lot of States have been unable to address how we implement this
new law.
One of the things that I was interested in reading, the
testimony was how you had engaged in business community. What I
have seen, the business community obviously benefits from an
educated society and, of course, business communities make
their decisions where they locate based on a skilled workforce,
an educated workforce.
So, in fact, in several areas in my district, people ask
me, so how do we recruit industry? And I said, well, we have
got to have an educated and skilled workforce. Well, how do we
do that?
It is a challenge and as far as your experience in the
business community, what have you seen and how is your business
community address this incredible need to get folks back to
work in this country?
Mr. Pruitt. Great question. Workforce is inextricably
linked to education, and so I think we are very lucky in our
State that we have a governor who, in our legislature, who is
very focused with the workforce and that is an area of mind
that I have a particular interest in as well.
One of the things we like about the regs is that they do
give career and technical education. It is just we are actually
recognizing it as a major portion of our students' educational
experience. I think we are recognizing that simply graduating
from high school is not enough. There should not be a terminal
degree or diploma.
We actually need to be training students to be able to go--
whether they go into university or 2-year technical college or
directly into the career workforce, we have to provide all
those opportunities laid out for students and do a good job
counseling them.
We have had a great relationship with our cabinet workforce
and education in that we are working with our Kentucky
Workforce Innovation Board to actually have the business
community tell us so that we can actually develop pathways for
specific jobs that are needed in the different regions of
Kentucky, So as we work with our KWIB, we are actually asking
now, which of these pathways are important, so that we can
attract better business to our communities. Because we actually
have a workforce that is able to meet the needs because we are
not just randomly giving career tech credit, we are actually
focused on getting the credit that is necessary to be able to
fill the job needs.
Mr. Allen. I congratulate you on your work. Dr. Schuler, in
traveling throughout my district which you are close to the
kitchen in your district, in your area, and one of the things--
and, of course, Dr. Pruitt mentioned in his testimony educating
the whole child, and I was shocked in asking questions. I said
I always ask what is your biggest challenge and everywhere I
went, they talked about the emotional health of these young
people. And, of course, we are talking about how do you educate
the entire person?
Do you care to comment on any issues you are having and
maybe how you are addressing that?
Mr. Schuler. Well, we just engage in our district and the
entire community conversation on that exact topic. In talking
about what does make sense, how are we ensuring the emotional,
mental health of our kids and are we putting too much stress
and pressure on them? And it has been an awesome conversation,
so starting in two years, we are going to start our high
schools later in the day based on the research.
We have found a way to compact the day, shortening the
lunch periods, so that kids are not still there late at night.
We also put parameters and limits on how long practices and
activities can last, and we are providing some opportunities
during the year where we are asking our staff and our students
not to do work.
Four weekends during the year we say go be a kid. Staff,
focus on your family. Because we need people to step away a
little bit so that they come back and completely reengage. And
that has been--I am really excited about that, to track that
and see if that has an impact.
But we have to do something to ensure that we are providing
for that whole child and that is what has been so frustrating,
I think, the last couple of years and at least why a couple of
us are up here today concerning--none of that conversation is
about the score. None of this stuff that Dr. Pruitt is doing is
talking about a score. We have to provide access and
opportunities to rebuild our communities.
Mr. Rokita. The gentleman's time is expired. The gentleman
from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Grothman. Thanks much. The first one is for any one of
you, so we will see who talks first. I do not know if you were
here and happened to hear Secretary King's testimony but I
wonder if any of you, and you can start with Dr. Pruitt and
work our way across the table, if there is anything he said
that you would like to respond to?
Mr. Pruitt. I think, I mentioned this earlier, I think some
of his interpretations of what are in the regs are different
than our interpretations; ``ours'' being Kentuckians. I really
do not think that he sees the timeline issue the same way we
do. Having the conflation between 2016-2017 identification and
2017-2018, he mentioned that 2017-2018 was a planning year,
which was new to me. I had not heard that before. My
understanding was that 2017-2018 was the year that you started.
If it is a plan year, then I think maybe we can have a
little bit more time to actually engage more stakeholders and
build a better system, but maybe I missed that part. But for
me, that was a bit of news, so maybe I have to go back and
reread, but the way I understand it is actually they have
accelerated it. And in my opinion, the current regs would
actually cause the current system to actually stay in place
because it limits my ability to be innovative. It limits my
ability to be able to do something special.
Mr. Grothman. Okay.
Ms. Harrelson. Okay, I would just like to emphasize again
the importance of teacher voice. And, you know, as you probably
read in my testimony, I do work in some of our lowest
performing schools in Colorado, and with teachers on the ground
floor daily and what we would like to see is allowing our
teachers to elevate their voice and what to do to actually
improve outcomes for our students in these conditions. So once
again, teacher voice. It is really hard for someone up here in
D.C. to start dictating what we should be doing in our low-
performing schools. It is really hard.. Thanks.
Ms. Hall. I think we heard the Secretary talk many times
about the importance of stakeholder engagement and getting
feedback through this entire implementation process, and I
believe that there are many instances where the Department has
made good on that and is continuing to make good on that.
We also heard the Secretary talk about putting guardrails
in place, but still allowing State and local decisions in key
places and I believe that the regulatory kind of proposal in
many instances allows for that.
One of the examples that he talked about was identifying
schools that are consistently underperforming based on State-
set goals, not federally prescribed goals, but those that are
based on an analysis of State data. We really appreciated that.
Mr. Schuler. Okay, this is the first time in 15 years that
we have the opportunity as people in the field and in the
States to develop some innovative creative ways to address the
goals of ESSA. And I am super concerned about the tight
timelines, almost ending up--not giving us that time to go out
and collectively engage stakeholders in authentic ways and
plant for that implementation.
We want to transform and lead, and we can do that. We just
need time to engage in that process. So I am very concerned
that a tight timeline is going to result in a continuation of
what has been and that is not what we want.
Mr. Grothman. Okay, I have a question for Ms. Harrelson
because I always liked math and I recently had a discussion
with somebody who is very involved in the system. He has been a
teacher. I think he is a tutor, been involved for many years,
and feels how much worse the students are doing than in the
past. Kind of interesting that you thought we would get more
input from the teachers.
When I was in the State legislature, he used to go, and I
still think it is right, that they would bar the use of
calculators on standardized tests. Part of it, I felt, was one
of the reasons why our children were having such a hard problem
with math and they were not developing the ability to play with
numbers in their head.
I wondered what your comments were on that, whether you
felt like my friends, that was one of the reasons why our kids
are underperforming in math. And while I do not like the
Federal Government imposing anything, something at least on the
State level, we ought to take those calculators away and force
those kids to play with numbers in their mind. In 15 seconds,
please.
Ms. Harrelson. All right,. I support a balanced approach
when it comes to calculators. It depends on what you are doing.
And so I do think that it is important for kids to be flexible
with numbers, but there is also some problem-solving that is at
a higher level that we might want to incorporate the use of a
calculator to reach some more complex problem-solving
situations.
Mr. Rokita. The time is expired. Mr. Scott, you are
recognized for a closing.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
convening the hearing. A lot of issues were brought forward,
one of which was the idea of supplement not supplant. As I
indicated, since the Brown decision, there is a constitutional
responsibility to provide an equal educational opportunity, and
supplement not supplant should be supplemental over and above,
not an unconstitutionally underfunded level. But what it should
have been, at least a bare minimum under the Constitution
providing equal educational opportunity and then it should be
supplemental because under the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 we recognized some challenges that occur
when there is a significant concentration of poverty. So we
need to make sure that we do not excuse those localities that
are not funding education up to at least a constitutional
level.
There are a lot of other issues that came up, but I think
the Secretary indicated that we are in the comment period and
if comments need to be made on regulations, now is the time to
make those comments known. He also indicated that he is going
to be seriously considering all of those comments and there is
no reason to believe that he will not.
So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving me, the witnesses,
the Secretary, and the panel the opportunity to comment on the
regulations. We did a lot of work to enact the Every Student
Succeeds Act. It is a bipartisan effort and we hopefully can
continue to go forward in a bipartisan manner.
Mr. Rokita. I thank the gentleman. I thank him for the
letter and spirit of his comments. We both sat at the final
negotiating table and the fact of the matter is the law is the
law and I was very clear on supplement and supplant. And from
the testimony even yet today, as we have heard for several
years now, to do so otherwise than what is in the current law
is to have a high likelihood of hurting those very kids that we
are supposed to be helping.
So with that, I want to thank each one of you for your
leadership, both locally and nationally. I am inspired and I am
motivated as well as the members here are by the words we have
heard today from each of you and the leadership that you
provide.
We do hope and expect that leadership will continue because
it is going to be needed now in the implementation as well as
the oversight phases of what is a very promising law, as Dr.
Roe said during the first panel, that is actually inspiring
teachers at the local level to continue teaching and maybe even
come back to the profession, and what a great sign that is and
will continue to be.
I agree also with Mr. Scott about the need to engage
stakeholders as you said. Dr. Pruitt and I think you all
mentioned the comment period is live. The deadline is August
1st.
For those of you at the witness table who are represented
by associations, those associations will definitely be making
comments for sure, but that does not prohibit any of you as
individuals or your counterparts or peers as individuals from
making comments as well.
Ms. Hall is also correct that we have all heard how often
Dr. King just today used the word ``feedback'' and we should
make sure there is no excuse on the table for him, for us, or
for anybody in this process to not have that feedback. Ad so
again, August 1st being the deadline, the time is now. And as
you are all leaders, I hope you and your counterparts and peers
will all step up.
With that, seeing no further business before the committee,
this committee stands adjourned.
[Additional submissions by Mr. Scott follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Questions submitted for the record and their responses
follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Responses to questions submitted for the record follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[all]