    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                         NEXT STEPS FOR K-12 EDUCATION:
                          IMPLEMENTING THE PROMISE TO
                        RESTORE STATE AND LOCAL CONTROL

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

                                   HEARING

                                 BEFORE THE

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD,
                      ELEMENTARY, AND SECONDARY EDUCATION

                             COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
                               AND THE WORKFORCE

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

               HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 10, 2016

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-38

                                   __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce

      [GRAPHIC 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
    98-524 PDF                    WASHINGTON : 2016

    ________________________________________________________________________________________
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                    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

                                    ------

      SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, ELEMENTARY, AND SECONDARY EDUCATION

                         TODD ROKITA, Indiana, Chairman

    Duncan Hunter, California            Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio,
    Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania           Ranking Minority Member
    Dave Brat, Virginia                  Susan A. Davis, California
    Buddy Carter, Georgia                Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
    Michael D. Bishop, Michigan          Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
    Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin              Northern Mariana Islands
    Steve Russell, Oklahoma              Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon
    Carlos Curbelo, Florida              Mark Takano, California
                                         Katherine M. Clark, Massachusetts

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on February 10, 2016................................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Rokita, Hon. Todd, Chairman, Subcommittee On Early Childhood,
          Elementary, and Secondary Education........................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     2
        Fudge, Hon. Marcia, L., Ranking Member, Subcommittee On Early
          Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education.............     3
            Prepared statement of....................................     4

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Almazan, Selene, A., ESQ., Legal Director, Council of Parent
          Attorneys and Advocates, Inc., Towson, MD..................    17
            Prepared statement of....................................    19
        Hofmeister, Joy, Superintendent of Public Instruction,
          Oklahoma State Department of Education, Oklahoma City, OK..    06
            Prepared statement of....................................    09
        Talbert, Kent, D., Attorney at Law, Law Office of Kent D.
          Talbert, PLLC,Washington, D.C..............................    27
            Prepared statement of....................................    29
        Wilson, Paul, V., Superintendent, Hartselle City Schools,
          Hartselle, AL..............................................    13
            Prepared statement of....................................    15

    Additional Submissions:
        Ms. Fudge:
            Letter dated January 21, 2016, from The Council of Parent
              Attorneys and Advocates, Inc...........................    85
        Chairman Rokita:
            Letter dated February 10, 2016, from a coalition of
              groups.................................................    82
        Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'', a Representative in Congress
          from the State of Virginia:
            NEAP test................................................    72
        Mr. Talbert:
            Supplemental response....................................    58
        Questions submitted for the record by:
            Bonamici, Hon. Suzanne, a Representative in Congress from
              the state of Oregon....................................    97
            Polis, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
              state of Colorado......................................    99
        Response to questions submitted for the record:
            Ms. Almazan..............................................44, 65
            Mr. Wilson...............................................   101

            NEXT STEPS FOR K-12 EDUCATION: IMPLEMENTING THE PROMISE.
                       TO RESTORE STATE AND LOCAL CONTROL

                                  ----------

                          Wednesday, February 10, 2016

                           House of Representatives,

                Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and

                              Secondary Education,

                   Committee on Education and the Workforce,

                                Washington, D.C.

        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in
    Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Todd Rokita
    [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Rokita, Thompson, Carter,
    Grothman, Russell, Fudge, Davis, Bonamici, and Clark.
        Also Present: Representatives Kline, Scott, and Polis.
        Staff Present: Lauren Aronson, Press Secretary; Janelle
    Belland, Coalitions and Members Services Coordinator; 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; 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; Austin Barbera, Minority Staff Assistant;
    Jacque Chevalier, Minority Senior Education Policy Advisor;
    Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director; Brian Kennedy, Minority
    General Counsel; Kiara Pesante, Minority Communications
    Director; Saloni Sharma, Minority Press Assistant; Michael
    Taylor, Minority Education Policy Fellow; and Arika Trim,
    Minority Press Secretary.
        Chairman Rokita. Good morning. A quorum being present, the
    Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary
    Education will come to order.
        I want to welcome everyone to the first subcommittee
    hearing of the new year. After replacing No Child Left Behind
    at the end of 2015, I think it's only fitting to kick off 2016
    with a conversation about what happens next.
        After years of flawed policies and Federal intrusions into
    the Nation's classrooms, Congress passed the Every Student
    Succeeds Act based on the principle that responsibility of K-12
    education must be returned to State and local leaders. The new
    law repeals onerous Federal requirements and ensures important
    decisions that affect education, like standards,
    accountability, school improvement, are made by State and local
    leaders, not Washington bureaucrats.
        That's why the Wall Street Journal editorial board
    described the legislation as, quote, ``the largest devolution
    of power to the States in a quarter-century,'' unquote, and why
    the National Governors Association lauded the new law as a,
    quote, ``historic moment in ensuring children's future success
    in the Nation's schools,'' unquote.
        There's no question that replacing No Child Left Behind was
    an important achievement, one that will improve K-12 education
    for students and families. But our work is far from finished;
    in fact, it's just beginning. Over the last several years, the
    administration has routinely taken a top-down approach to
    education, imposing on States and school districts a backdoor
    agenda that has sparked bipartisan opposition and harmed
    education reform efforts.
        The passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act puts States
    and school districts back in charge of education and includes
    more than 50 pages of provisions to keep the Department of
    Education in check. For example, the law protects the right of
    State and local leaders to determine what standards,
    assessments, and curriculum are best for their students and
    ensures State and local leaders are responsible for
    accountability in school improvement.
        Now, moving forward, it's going to be our collective
    responsibility to hold the Department of Education accountable
    for how it implements the law. This is what Congress does and
    is supposed to do. Congress promised to restore State and local
    control over K-12 education, and now it's our job to ensure
    that promise is kept.
        Hearing from you, the very leaders we want to empower, is a
    critical part of that effort. What role do State and local
    leaders play in implementing the law is a question. What
    challenges do you anticipate State and school districts may
    face is another question. How can the Department provide the
    increased flexibility and autonomy State and local leaders were
    promised and now expect?
        Today's conversation is one of many steps we plan to take
    to ensure the Department upholds the letter and spirit of the
    law that we passed and that the President signed, and answers
    to these questions will inform our efforts moving forward. It's
    my firm belief that when the Every Student Succeeds Act is
    implemented as Congress intended, parents, teachers, and State
    and local leaders will be empowered to deliver the excellent
    education, in fact, every child deserves.
        With that, again, I welcome everybody and will yield to
    Ranking Member Fudge for her opening remarks.
        [The statement of Chairman Rokita follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Todd Rokita, Chairman, Subcommittee on Early
                 Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education

        Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our first subcommittee
    hearing of the New Year. After replacing No Child Left Behind at the
    end of 2015, it's only fitting to kick off 2016 with a conversation
    about what happens next.
        After years of flawed policies and federal intrusions into the
    nation's classrooms, Congress passed the Every Student Succeeds Act
    based on the principle that responsibility of K-12 education must be
    returned to state and local leaders. The new law repeals onerous
    federal requirements and ensures important decisions affecting
    education--like standards, accountability, and school improvement--are
    made by state and local leaders, not Washington bureaucrats.
        That's why the Wall Street Journal editorial board described the
    legislation as ``the largest devolution of power to the states in a
    quarter century'' and why the National Governors' Association lauded
    the new law as ``an historic moment in ensuring children's future
    success in the nation's schools.''
        There is no question that replacing No Child Left Behind was an
    important achievement, one that will improve K-12 education for
    students and families. But our work is far from finished. In fact, it
    is just beginning.
        Over the last several years, this administration has routinely
    taken a top-down approach to education, imposing on states and school
    districts a backdoor agenda that has sparked bipartisan opposition and
    harmed education reform efforts.
        The passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act puts states and
    school districts back in charge of education, and includes more than 50
    pages of provisions to keep the Department of Education in check. For
    example, the law protects the right of state and local leaders to
    determine what standards, assessments, and curriculum are best for
    their students, and ensures state and local leaders are responsible for
    accountability and school improvement.
        Moving forward, it's our responsibility to hold the Department of
    Education accountable for how it implements the law. Congress promised
    to restore state and local control over K-12 education, and now it's
    our job to ensure that promise is kept. Hearing from you--the very
    leaders we want to empower--is a critical part of that effort. What do
    you expect from the new law? What role do state and local leaders play
    in implementing the law? What challenges do you anticipate states and
    school districts may face? How can the department provide the increased
    flexibility and autonomy state and local leaders were promised?
        Today's conversation is one of many steps we plan to take to ensure
    the department upholds the letter and spirit of the law, and answers to
    these questions will inform our efforts moving forward. It is my firm
    belief that when the Every Student Succeeds Act is implemented as
    Congress intended, teachers and state and local leaders will be
    empowered to deliver the excellent education every child deserves.
        With that, I will yield to Ranking Member Fudge for her opening
    remarks.
                                     ______

        Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you all for being here this morning.
        I'm pleased to be here to discuss the implementation of the
    Every Student Succeeds Act. I do believe that this bipartisan
    law will fulfill the Elementary and Secondary Education Act's
    promise to promote and protect the right to educational
    opportunity for all of the Nation's most vulnerable children.
        We worked across the aisle to write this law over many
    months and years, and I am pleased with the role House
    Democrats played to strengthen the final conference report and
    secure the President's signature. I look forward to working
    with you, the administration, and with stakeholders to preserve
    the law's civil rights legacy during implementation.
        The Every Student Succeeds Act provides the much-needed
    flexibility absent in No Child Left Behind's one-size-fits-all
    requirements but maintains critical Federal protections to
    ensure that every child has access to a quality education. This
    is particularly important for students of color, English
    language learners, students with disabilities, and low-income
    students, who disproportionately face barriers to a quality
    education that prepares them for college and a career.
        Under ESSA, States and local school districts will have the
    flexibility to design multi-measure accountability systems,
    make important decisions about standards and assessments, and
    ensure that school intervention and support strategies are
    improving outcomes for students.
        But with new flexibility comes responsibility. States and
    school districts will need to implement ESSA in a way that
    continues its focus on meeting the needs of our Nation's most
    at-risk students. The work will not be easy. The voices of our
    communities will be vital in determining the parameters of
    implementation. Parents, teachers, and students will need to
    elevate their voices and experiences at school board meetings
    and State capitals across the country. State and local leaders
    will need to fight for strong, student-focused policies. And
    the U.S. Department of Education will need to ensure that
    States are putting children's needs first.
        As ESSA is implemented, stakeholder input will continue to
    be important. I was pleased to see that 370 organizations and
    individuals provided recommendations to the U.S. Department of
    Education regarding the regulatory process. Many stakeholders
    asked for additional clarity through regulations on issues
    including, but not limited to, defining vague terms, setting
    parameters, and providing options to fulfill legal requirements
    in ESSA.
        Many stakeholders also requested a timeline to help States
    and school districts plan for the transition. I believe such a
    timeline is a critical component of the process.
        Federal agencies are required to faithfully implement the
    law. I am pleased that the U.S. Department of Education has
    started the process of issuing regulations and guidance to
    assist States and school districts with implementing the Every
    Student Succeeds Act.
        States and school districts need clarity, rules, and
    oversight throughout the implementation process to ensure that
    the law fulfills ESSA's promise. While some things like annual
    assessments and disaggregated data will remain the same, there
    will be many new requirements, and the Federal guidance will
    empower States to hit the ground running.
        I look forward to hearing about the panel's experiences and
    their recommendations for ensuring a smooth and successful
    transition in a way that preserves the critical Federal role in
    promoting educational equity.
        I yield back.
        [The statement of Ms. Fudge follows:]

          Prepared Statement of Hon. Marcia L. Fudge, Ranking Member,
      Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education

        Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here today to discuss the
    implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act. I believe this
    bipartisan law will fulfill the Elementary and Secondary Education
    Act's promise to promote and protect the right to educational
    opportunity for our nation's most vulnerable children.
        We worked across the aisle to write this law over many months and
    years, and I am pleased with the role House Democrats played to
    strengthen the final conference report and secure the President's
    signature.
        I look forward to working with you, the Administration, and with
    stakeholders to preserve the law's civil rights legacy during
    implementation.
        The Every Student Succeeds Act provides the much needed flexibility
    absent in No Child Left Behind's one-size-fits-all requirements, but
    maintains critical federal protections to ensure that every child has
    access to a quality education. This is particularly important for
    students of color, English language learners, students with
    disabilities, and low-income students, who disproportionately face
    barriers to a quality education that prepares them for college and a
    career.
        Under ESSA, states and local school districts will have new
    flexibility to design multi-measure accountability systems, make
    important decisions about standards and assessments, and ensure that
    school intervention and support strategies are improving outcomes for
    students. But with new flexibility comes responsibility. States and
    school districts will need to implement ESSA in a way that continues
    its focus on meeting the needs of our nation's most at-risk students.
        The work will not be easy. The voices of our communities will be
    vital in determining the parameters of implementation. Parents,
    teachers, and students will need to elevate their voices and
    experiences at school board meetings and state capitols across the
    country. State and local leaders will need to fight for strong student
    focused policies. And the US Department of Education will need to
    ensure that states are putting children's needs first.
        As ESSA is implemented, stakeholder input will continue to be
    important. I was pleased to see that 370 organizations and individuals
    provided recommendations to the US Department of Education regarding
    the regulatory process. Many stakeholders asked for additional clarity
    through regulations, on issues including, but not limited to, defining
    vague terms, setting parameters, and providing options to fulfill legal
    requirements in ESSA. Many stakeholders also requested a timeline to
    help states and school districts plan for the transition. I believe
    such a timeline is a critical component of the process.
        Federal agencies are required to faithfully implement the law. I am
    pleased that the US Department of Education has started the process of
    issuing regulations and guidance to assist states and school districts
    with implementing the Every Student Succeeds Act.
        States and school districts need clarity, rules, and oversight
    throughout the implementation process, to ensure that the law fulfills
    ESSA's promise. While some things--like annual assessments and
    disaggregated data--will remain the same, there will be many new
    requirements, and federal guidance will empower states to hit the
    ground running.
        I look forward to hearing about the panel's experiences and their
    recommendations for ensuring a smooth and successful transition in a
    way that preserves the critical federal role in promoting educational
    equity.
                                     ______

        Chairman Rokita. I thank the gentlelady.
        Pursuant to committee rule 7(c), all members will be
    permitted to submit written statements to be included in the
    permanent hearing record. And, without objection, the hearing
    record will remain open for the 14 days to allow such
    statements and other extraneous material in reference during
    the hearing to be submitted for the official hearing record.
        I will now turn to the introduction of our distinguished
    witnesses. And I ask Mr. Russell of Oklahoma to introduce our
    first witness.
        Mr. Russell. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        It's my honor this morning to welcome to the committee the
    State superintendent of public instruction for the great State
    of Oklahoma, Ms. Joy Hofmeister, a friend.
        She comes with a wealth of experience and background not
    only as a public schoolteacher but also as a small-business
    owner. She served on the State Board of Education. She has
    worked tirelessly, getting out in the school districts to
    listen to what the standards concerns are, the importance of
    having State control for these standards.
        And it is my honor to welcome her to this committee this
    morning.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Rokita. I thank the gentleman.
        Welcome.
        I'll continue with introductions.
        Dr. Paul "Vic" Wilson serves as the superintendent for the
    Hartselle City Board of Education, in Hartselle, Alabama.
    Previous to serving as superintendent, Dr. Wilson was a high
    school principal at Mountain Brook High School.
        Ms. Selene Almazan serves as legal director for the Council
    of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, COPAA, in Towson, Maryland.
    For the last 20 years, Ms. Almazan has represented parents in
    special education matters, with a primary focus on least
    restrictive environment issues, individualized education plan
    team meetings, State complaint proceedings, mediations, due
    process hearings, suspension and expulsion proceedings, and
    Federal court proceedings.
        Welcome.
        Mr. Kent Talbert serves as an attorney in Washington, D.C.,
    where he provides advice on education law and policy, covering
    pre-K through postsecondary education issues. In addition, Mr.
    Talbert served as the general counsel for the U.S. Department
    of Education from 2006 to 2009 and also served with this
    committee.
        Welcome, all.
        I will now ask our witnesses to stand and raise your right
    hand.
        Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are
    about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
    the truth?
        Chairman Rokita. Let the record reflect witnesses answered
    in the affirmative.
        And you may be seated.
        Before I recognize you to provide your testimony, let me
    briefly explain our lighting system. You each have 5 minutes to
    present your testimony. When you begin, the light in front of
    you will be green. When 1 minute is left, the light will turn
    yellow. And when your time is expired, it will be red. At that
    point, I'll ask you to wrap up your remarks as best as you are
    able.
        And, by the way, this is a reminder for us up here, as
    well, not just you all. Members then will each have 5 minutes
    to ask questions.
        And, with that, Ms. Hofmeister, you're recognized for 5
    minutes.

         TESTIMONY OF JOY HOFMEISTER, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC
     INSTRUCTION, OKLAHOMA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, OKLAHOMA
                             CITY, OKLAHOMA

        Ms. Hofmeister. Well, thank you very much.
        Chairman Kline, thank you. Thank you, Chairman Rokita,
    Ranking Member Fudge, as well as the introduction from my
    Congressman, Congressman Russell, and members of the committee,
    for the opportunity to testify today.
        And congratulations on the successful passage of Every
    Student Succeeds Act. As Oklahoma State superintendent, I
    embrace the challenge to successfully implement this important
    new law. My goal is to ensure all Oklahoma's students have
    access to a high-quality education.
        To do so, we have set out on an ambitious path to focus on
    early childhood foundations in literacy, to close achievement
    gaps and opportunity gaps, and to increase the number of high
    school graduates fully prepared for the challenges of a
    postsecondary education or the workforce. Passage of this new
    law could not have come at a better time to give us the
    flexibility and authority needed to achieve these goals.
        Prior to the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act,
    Oklahoma struggled to realize the full potential of every
    child. Why? While we set ambitious goals and created meaningful
    programs to meet those goals, we faced a prescriptive Federal
    law that offered neither the space nor the flexibility to do
    what we needed to do on behalf of kids.
        Today, however, my fellow State chiefs and I look forward
    to both the flexibility and stability of this new law so we can
    create accountability systems, school-level interventions, and
    educator evaluation and support frameworks to achieve the goals
    we have set for all students in our States.
        This law signals a new era of Federal policy in education,
    one that lets those at the State and local levels, those
    closest to the classrooms, focus their efforts on reaching the
    best outcomes for all students while still holding us
    accountable for results for kids.
        States like Oklahoma will only be able to achieve the full
    promise of this new law if the Federal Government continues to
    hold true to the spirit of the law, if we truly are allowed to
    innovate, free from regulations and guidelines that change the
    intent of this body. Striking the balance between guidance to
    the States and ensuring that States are not overly prescribed
    is what State leaders need.
        I realize that some regulation and guidance are necessary
    as States transition to the new law. For example, I know States
    will welcome clarification on such issues as the timeline for
    implementation.
        And I want to recognize the U.S. Department of Education
    already, as they have taken steps to provide some clarity on
    key issues, such as the recent guidance on how States can
    transition away from highly qualified teacher regulations. I
    applaud these positive signs from the Department and appreciate
    their efforts to leave these necessary decisions up to States
    and local communities.
        Under No Child Left Behind, States quickly realized that
    academic progress was stalling under an outdated law. We first
    noticed the lag in our accountability systems. Because these
    systems relied solely on the number of kids passing one test
    each year, we could not accurately identify all schools in need
    of improvement. Moreover, once schools were identified, we saw
    that what may work for school improvement in Oklahoma City or
    in Tulsa was not the same as what was needed or might work in
    Guymon or Muskogee.
        Oklahoma has a new day, and we know that now, under the new
    Every Student Succeeds Act, Oklahoma plans to build on the
    progress we made through our ESEA flexibility waiver to create
    a better system for all kids--an accountability system that
    better identifies schools and what assistance they need; more
    targeted interventions that recognize not every student or
    community is the same; and complete authority to craft an
    evaluation and support system that truly evaluates and supports
    Oklahoma teachers amidst the reality of a historic teacher
    shortage.
        Let me leave you with this final thought. States are not
    only ready but we are willing and able to lead under this new
    law. We have proven it time and time again, as we have raised
    academic standards for every child, created better assessments
    to meet individual needs, and sought additional flexibility to
    do what is best for all kids in our States.
        What we need today is for Congress and the U.S. Department
    of Education to continue to recognize our leadership as we work
    with parents, teachers, and key stakeholders to transition to
    this new law. Future regulation should focus on providing
    States with guidance, clarification, and support but not
    prescription and compliance.
        I look forward to this opportunity to focus on what needs
    to be done to give every Oklahoma child a first-rate education.
    Under this new law, I now see the Federal Government as a
    partner in this effort, not a barrier. I hope we can work
    together to keep it that way.
        Thank you, and I'm available for answering any questions
    you may have at the appropriate time.
        [The statement of Ms. Hofmeister follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Rokita. Thank you.
        Dr. Wilson, you're recognized for 5 minutes.

      TESTIMONY OF PAUL ``VIC'' WILSON, SUPERINTENDENT, HARTSELLE
                    CITY SCHOOLS, HARTSELLE, ALABAMA

        Mr. Wilson. Thank you. Good morning. Thank you for allowing
    me to speak to you about the reauthorization of the Elementary
    and Secondary Education Act, which resulted in the passage of
    the Every Student Succeeds Act.
        My name is Vic Wilson, superintendent of Hartselle City
    Schools, and I come to you today representing AASA, The School
    Superintendents Association; Schools Superintendents of
    Alabama; and the Hartselle City Schools.
        ESSA signifies a wonderful step in the right direction to
    return autonomy and decision-making to the State and local
    level. Just as former Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill observed
    all politics is local, I contend that all education is local,
    as well, and best delivered and administered at the local level
    by educational professionals and stakeholders who know and
    understand the intricacies of not only local politics but local
    education.
        Certainly a role exists for the United States Education
    Department, a role focused on strengthening and supporting
    public schools by equitably applying broad flexibility to
    States and local districts in their efforts to meet the needs
    of the stakeholders under their purview. ESSA represents the
    first time in 15 years that State and local education agencies
    can demonstrate what they can do to support student learning
    without Federal overreach.
        Throughout the United States, the Nation's 14,000 public
    school superintendents are charged with meeting and exceeding
    expectations of student achievement and learning for
    stakeholders at the local level. What works in Alabama might
    not work and might be slightly different from what works in
    Minnesota. Likewise, what works in Hartselle, Alabama, might
    differ slightly what from what works in Florence, Alabama, or
    Arley, Alabama. ESSA provides a new opportunity for each of
    those leaders who craft and implement customized education for
    learners in their district.
        In Hartselle City Schools, we strive to meet the needs of
    students who want to be a rocket scientist, the student who
    wants to be a doctor, the student who wants to be a welder, the
    student who wants to work in public service, or the student who
    really doesn't know what he or she wants to be at that time,
    and perhaps even the student who wants to become a teacher.
        Thanks to the flexibility given to us by the Alabama State
    Department of Education and now ESSA, we are able to do this by
    collaborating, as necessary, with local entities and other
    school systems across the State. We're even able to converse
    and collaborate with leaders across the Nation to see how these
    ideas are working in one region of the country and how they
    might be applied in our area. This works best on an organic
    level via networking conducted by local leaders instead of top-
    down mandates, and ESSA allows and encourages this type of
    collaborative dialogue.
        Last week, Superintendent Bill Hopkins, Superintendent Ed
    Nichols, and I met in Montgomery with superintendents across
    our State at our legislative conference. While all of three of
    us reside in Morgan County, we each have differences with which
    we must deal on a daily basis. Without the ability to implement
    guidelines that best fit the needs of our respective districts'
    students, we would be forced to work with round holes and
    square pegs far too often.
        Every leader needs the flexibility to deal with those
    situations that are unique to their district in a manner that
    best meets the need. Superintendent Janet Womack will deal with
    issues in Florence City differently than Ed, Bill, or I will,
    and rightly so. ESSA is a huge step in this direction and will
    serve leaders as they strive to lead all learners up the stairs
    of success.
        When it comes to Federal regulations and ESSA, less is
    more. I strongly encourage the USED to incorporate input and
    feedback from stakeholders before adding regulations that could
    hamper their State and local decision-making.
        In Alabama, Dr. Bice implemented PLAN 2020 that has greatly
    increased local control and had resulted in great growth across
    our State. Our graduation rates are going up. Our dropout rates
    and recidivism rates are going down.
        For example, by reexamining rules and regulations that tie
    seat time to credit-bearing courses or regulations that ignore
    competency-based accountability systems, the United States
    Education Department can empower school districts to think
    outside the box and implement procedures and policies that best
    meet the needs of schools and the students they serve.
        Hartselle City Schools, the SSA and the AASA, and other
    agencies concur about the importance of implementing ESSA in a
    manner that reflects the expanded authority and flexibility now
    granted to the experts at the State and local level. ESSA makes
    it clear that Congress' intent is the State should be solely
    responsible for decisions regarding accountability, standards,
    teachers, and other factors. Essentially, ESSA is a
    codification of reality that one size does not fit all and
    there truly is not one best model that will serve all students
    and schools.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to speak to you today
    and submit these comments. My goal today has been to highlight
    the importance of ensuring the State and local education
    agencies have local control when deciding among the myriad
    options available in delivering quality instruction and meeting
    the needs of all the students.
        By allowing this broad flexibility to the States and local
    agencies, ESSA will go a long way in transforming public
    education at the local and State level and thereby propelling
    public education forward nationally.
        Thank you.
        [The statement of Mr. Wilson follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Rokita. Thank you, sir.
        Ms. Almazan, you're recognized for 5 minutes.

     TESTIMONY OF SELENE A. ALMAZAN, ESQ., LEGAL DIRECTOR, COUNCIL
       OF PARENT ATTORNEYS AND ADVOCATES, INC., TOWSON, MARYLAND

        Ms. Almazan. Thank you.
        Good morning, Chairman Kline, Chairman Rokita, Ranking
    Member Scott and Ranking Member Fudge, and members of the
    committee.
        I am Selene Almazan, legal director of the Council of
    Parent Attorneys and Advocates, a national nonprofit whose
    mission is to protect the civil rights of 6.4 million children
    with disabilities attending our Nation's public schools. I am
    also a parent to three children. Two of my children have
    disabilities and attended Maryland public schools.
        I understand the impact of high expectations for students
    with disabilities and students of color through the lives of my
    clients and know firsthand the impact of high expectations for
    my own children.
        A client of mine, Georgia, now age 12, was placed in a
    segregated classroom with no access to high-quality
    instruction. She's African-American. Georgia has a rare genetic
    condition that impacts her in many ways but does not impact her
    desire to learn. We worked to have her moved to general
    education classrooms. With the right supports and access to
    trained teachers and high expectations, she flourished.
        Georgia is not alone in her quest. The need to demand high
    expectations in order to have the opportunity to achieve has a
    profound impact on the lives of many students and their
    families, my own included.
        Over the past several years, COPAA has worked with
    disabilities, civil rights, and business communities to ensure
    that ESEA, now known as the ESSA, fully supports black,
    Hispanic, low-income, English learners, and students with
    disabilities to succeed.
        Key to our collective support has been that the Secretary
    of Education approves plans and ensures State implementation
    and that States take action when schools and districts fail to
    meet their obligations; includes annual statewide assessments;
    has a strict statewide participation cap at 1 percent of all
    students by subject on the use of alternate assessments;
    includes a requirement to assess at least 95 percent of all
    students; includes statewide accountability systems with
    achievement and graduation goals; and requires action when any
    group of students consistently underperforms.
        My testimony today intends to accomplish two priorities.
        Priority number one: The role of the Department of
    Education is vital in the implementation of ESSA. While section
    1111(e) of ESSA includes specific limited restrictions on
    Federal prescription, COPAA and its civil rights coalition
    partners are confident that the provisions therein are specific
    and limited enough as to not erode the regulatory authority of
    the Secretary.
        ESSA acknowledges that regulations will be promulgated,
    and, in so doing, the Secretary will use regulations that
    protect the rights of all children without exceeding the scope
    of and without being inconsistent with the statute. It is clear
    that the U.S. Department of Education has the correct
    regulatory authority to develop recommendations for
    implementation. In its simplest form, regulation allocates
    responsibility to implement statutory law.
        On priority two, COPAA takes seriously the impact Title I
    implementation has on students. We understand States will have
    more discretion in carrying out ESSA. However, COPAA, along
    with our partners in the business, civil rights, and disability
    community, have and will work to prevent efforts to water down
    expectations, avoid full transparency, diminish the importance
    of honest measures, or delay interventions when any group of
    students is struggling.
        COPAA submitted comprehensive recommendations to the
    Secretary on ESSA Title I. We believe it is imperative that the
    Secretary exercise full legal authority to issue regulations on
    key Title I provisions, including: to clarify and define new
    statutory terms and provide parameters on the n-size to protect
    the integrity of accountability and assessment systems; specify
    that 95-percent participation requirement is included in
    accountability; establish the statutory State cap at 1 percent
    of all students for use in alternate assessments; recognize
    district flexibility and create strict criteria for any State
    waiver; assure State and district-led evidence-based
    interventions systems are focused on raising achievement and
    are initiated whenever any school is underperforming for all
    students or for any student group.
        The ESSA is our Nation's most important civil rights law.
    While ESSA does include new flexibility, it also includes
    bright-line requirements that the civil rights and business
    community help support. The Department must now provide
    clarifying rules so States can implement the law in a way that
    honors the purpose of the bill but also holds States
    accountable for access to over 15 billion dollars in Federal
    funds. Federal funds are still conditional through compliance
    with the law, and there's agreement that the Secretary has the
    authority to define, monitor, and enforce the law.
        Student rights and educational opportunity must not be
    compromised by politics that seek to ignore the foundational
    tenet of administrative law. We want to help States and
    districts create new opportunities to accelerate student
    progress for our most vulnerable groups of children.
        I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today and look
    forward to your questions. Thank you.
        [The statement of Ms. Almazan follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Rokita. Thank you.
        Mr. Talbert, you're recognized for 5 minutes.

     TESTIMONY OF KENT D. TALBERT, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LAW OFFICE OF
                KENT D. TALBERT, PLLC, WASHINGTON, D.C.

        Mr. Talbert. Chairman Rokita, Ranking Member Fudge,
    Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Scott, members of the committee,
    it's a pleasure to be here to present testimony on
    implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act.
        In my past role as general counsel, one of my tasks was to
    advise the Secretary of Education on the contours of newly
    enacted laws--in other words, what are the boundaries or the
    scope of the text. This is a lot like a football field. The
    field has boundaries within which the game is played. And so,
    too, any new law must be interpreted within the confines of the
    text.
        The process of advising the Secretary necessarily involves
    making judgments about whether proposed regulatory actions or
    guidance or other implementation decisions are within the scope
    of the words of the statute. This generally involves taking a
    close look at the particular text as well as looking at the
    text in light of the whole.
        One question that sometimes arises is what happens if a
    regulation is drafted in a manner that's outside the scope of
    the text. The answer is a department or agency may risk a
    potential lawsuit, and so there's potential that the regulation
    could be set aside by a court. Or, in the case of guidance,
    there's a risk that it could be declared legislative rule--in
    effect, a regulation. And in this latter case, a court may
    require a department or agency to go back and do notice-and-
    comment rulemaking.
        And so it's within this context that I present my
    testimony. I have three things that I'll focus on. The first is
    the law's broad shift in authority to States and school
    districts. Secondly, I'll share a few thoughts on
    implementation. And, third, I'll conclude with a brief
    discussion of some of the prohibitions in Title VIII of the
    law.
        With respect to the shift in authority to States and school
    districts, without question, the new law provides States with
    the authority to design accountability systems from the ground
    up. In effect, the States become the design engineers operating
    within broad Federal guidelines, and then they proceed to build
    these systems.
        In addition, the law's shift in authority can be seen in
    the multiple affirmations of the State-level direction over
    standards and assessments and in the prohibitions that are
    placed upon the Federal Government's involvement in standards,
    assessments, and curriculum.
        I'll talk about some of those prohibitions in a little more
    detail in a few minutes, but for now I would note that the new
    law does prohibit the Federal Government from mandating,
    directing, or requiring Common Core State standards as well as
    any other assessments aligned to such standards.
        Similarly, no funds may be used for developing,
    incentivizing, administering, and so forth of any federally
    sponsored national test unless it's expressly authorized in the
    law. For example, NAEP would be one of those that's expressly
    authorized in the law.
        A third aspect of the shift to States and school districts
    can be found in the waiver authority. New language was added to
    section 8401 to make clear that the Federal Government may not
    disapprove a waiver request based on conditions that are
    outside the scope of the waiver that's requested, nor may the
    Secretary require as a condition of waiver approval an
    applicant to use Common Core standards or use specific
    assessments, such as those aligned to the Common Core, nor
    include in or delete from a waiver request specific elements of
    State academic standards assessments, accountability systems,
    or teacher evaluation systems.
        Turning now to implementation, were I providing advice to
    those charged with implementation, I would note the primary
    importance of the text in any interpretive challenge.
    Ultimately, fidelity to the text will prove critical in any
    legal dispute. And so, in reading the text of the Every Student
    Succeeds Act, one should be aware of and distinguish between
    things such as purpose statements, express program
    requirements, rules of construction, findings, as well as sense
    of the Congress provisions.
        Likewise, in thinking through implementation, I want you to
    be apprised of the various cannons of construction. Three
    examples of rules of construction are the plain meaning rule,
    the rule of nonretroactivity, and the harmonization of
    disparate text to the extent you can harmonize different
    provisions. One should also give attention to the words that
    are used, ``shall'' versus ``may,'' and then such things as
    grammar and punctuation.
        Separate and apart from consideration of the text is the
    legislative history that's involved. In order to provide as
    complete a picture as possible to senior officers and so forth,
    I would recommend that they carefully review, prior to
    implementation and rulemaking, all the relevant parts of
    committee reports, floor debates, conference reports, and the
    like. They are particularly helpful in understanding the
    broader background and context of the law.
        With respect to Title VIII's general provisions, and to
    conclude, I would advise careful attention to these. They often
    deal with discrete, sometimes controversial topics. They
    include prohibitions, limitations, and commentary on a host of
    issues. Some have been in the law for years, others are new,
    others are modified. Most are generally straightforward and
    unequivocal.
        For example, officers or employees of the Federal
    Government, whether through grant, contract, or cooperative
    agreement, are prohibited from mandating, directing, and
    controlling, so forth, the school district or schools' programs
    of instructions, standards, assessments, and the like. This
    also includes prohibitions relating to the Common Core
    standards. And States cannot be penalized for withdrawing from
    the Common Core.
        Chairman Rokita. Mr. Talbert, I need to cut you off. Five
    minutes is up, but I'm sure we'll come back to your testimony
    in the questions. So thank you very much.
        Mr. Talbert. Thank you very much.
        [The statement of Mr. Talbert follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Rokita. I thank all the witnesses.
        As I often do, I'm going to defer my questions to the end
    and recognize other members of the committee first, first and
    foremost being the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Kline
    from Minnesota, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Kline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thanks to the witnesses for being here.
        We're very excited and interested to follow the
    implementation of ESSA. As all of you know, it was years in the
    making. There was bipartisan agreement that we wanted to have a
    devolution of power from the Federal Government back to States
    and local governments.
        Our concern has been, my concern has been, as we go into
    implementation, that there may be misinterpretations Mr.
    Talbert was just talking about. It is possible that some States
    will end up with No Child Left Behind light. I certainly hope
    that doesn't happen. But it was my belief, and I think in a
    bipartisan way, that those were choices that these States and
    local governments would be making.
        One of the things that we have been hearing some about,
    besides the assertion of the former Secretary of Education that
    he has better lawyers than we do--I'm not sure that I agree
    with that. In fact, I would disagree with that.
        But there has been a lot of noise that the new law, ESSA,
    in requiring that standards be aligned to college entrance
    requirements, that there is some noise that the Federal
    Department of Education has implied that this will mean
    college- and career-ready as defined in the Race to the Top
    grant program. And around the country, many people see that--
    and I've already heard this many times--that that's sort of
    code for Common Core State standards. That's certainly not my
    intent nor, I think, our intent in a bipartisan way.
        But I want to go to Ms. Hofmeister, if I could, because I'm
    looking at some notes here in front of me. We understand that
    Oklahoma has recently gone through a rewrite of its academic
    standards, in consultation with its higher education system,
    that has not resulted in Oklahoma adopting the Common Core.
        Can you walk us through what you did and how that works and
    how it might apply elsewhere?
        Ms. Hofmeister. Yes, sir. Thank you, Chairman.
        We certainly started out with a process where we wanted to
    make certain that our students would be competitive and that
    they would be ready for their next steps in learning, whether
    that's at the end of the grade level or at the end of their
    high school career, ready to take those next steps. And we do
    believe that there is need for that.
        What we did in Oklahoma was we partnered together at each
    grade band level, starting with early childhood because we have
    pre-K. This is a first time we have vertically aligned pre-K
    through 12th-grade standards, and we partnered with counterpart
    in higher education, using subject matter experts as well as
    those familiar with pedagogy of teaching that subject. And
    we're working together, a combined effort on the writing teams.
    So we had co-chairs in math and English language arts that
    reflected both the common education system as well as higher
    education.
        And that partnership was one that has been successful. Just
    earlier, on the first day of this month, we submitted those
    standards that included the input of hundreds of Oklahoma
    teachers and those members in higher ed, as well.
        Mr. Kline. So just to underscore this, because I'm afraid
    we're going to be hearing this again and again and again, you
    have gone through the rewrite of your academic standards in the
    collaborative way you've just described, and you ended up with
    standards that are not the Common Core. Is that correct?
        Ms. Hofmeister. Absolutely, they are not Common Core. We --
        Mr. Kline. Nor--excuse me--nor did you feel compelled to
    make them Common Core.
        Ms. Hofmeister. That is correct. And we are a State who
    lost our waiver because we repealed Common Core and had to go
    through efforts to demonstrate that we had rigorous standards.
    And that was certified by our higher ed board of regents. Then
    we got to work writing the standards that Oklahoma needs for
    Oklahoma students.
        Mr. Kline. Perfect. Thank you very much.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Rokita. The gentleman yields back.
        Ranking Member Scott, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Hofmeister, it's my understanding that Oklahoma now has
    only three subgroups for performance and two for graduation.
    The subgroups that we expect to be evaluating would include
    ethnicity, English as a second language, disability, and low-
    income. Will you be assessing students on all four subgroups,
    in compliance with the law?
        Ms. Hofmeister. Yes. And thank you, Congressman.
        We do believe--and I have been in office for a year and
    have been critical of the particular accountability system that
    we have. It is actually one that was granted to us under a
    waiver. But it does mask the performance of our subgroup
    population. This is an area of concern for me.
        It's also an area that I think needs to have a greater
    exposure at the local level so that they can make the kinds of
    strategic plans to address the needs of those who are not
    performing to their full promise and potential in those
    subgroups. So, yes, sir.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you.
        And back to the question that the chairman asked about
    Common Core, you set the standards, but are the standards--if a
    student achieves the standards, will they be eligible for
    entrance in a State college?
        Ms. Hofmeister. That is very important. Thank you,
    Congressman.
        We want to be certain that students finish graduation and a
    diploma has great value and meaning, and a meaning that means
    they are able to begin with the credit-bearing coursework in a
    university or college or community college or that they are
    ready to start work or continue work with credentialing in the
    industry and workforce area.
        So this is something that we have great work to do in
    working to really eliminate and shrink the remediation gap that
    exists right now. And I do believe that we are on our way.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you.
        Ms. Almazan, what authority does the Federal Government
    have under the bill if a State and local education system fails
    to graduate the requisite percentage of students or they fail
    to achieve? What authority does the Federal Government have to
    come in and do something?
        Ms. Almazan. Well, we believe that the Federal authority is
    there in section 1111(e) of the ESSA. And it is well-
    established under administrative law that the executive branch
    does have the authority to come in and help implement and
    interpret statutes and laws that have been promulgated. They
    have the authority to clarify as well as interpret and help to
    implement, because the executive branch does have the expertise
    in implementation.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you.
        And, Ms. Hofmeister, what should be done if a school fails
    to achieve, say, on graduation rates? What kind of response
    should there be on a State and local basis for a school that's
    not achieving on graduation rates?
        Ms. Hofmeister. Thank you, Congressman.
        We need to have very good information so people can make
    good decisions. And some of those decisions are on how to
    address needs, but you don't have an opportunity to do that if
    you don't have that good information.
        So, in our current situation, we had an accountability
    system that really masks that. That was approved by the
    Department of Education. And what we found was you could earn a
    letter grade of an A or a B and still have a graduation rate in
    your school of less than 67 percent. That's unacceptable.
    That's a problem. So we want to address that, and we now have a
    new way.
        Mr. Scott. What kind of initiatives would take place once
    you've unmasked the problem? One of the things that we want to
    do, both to assess but then do something? What kinds of things
    can be done to improve the graduation rate?
        Ms. Hofmeister. Well, one example would be, first of all, I
    believe you have to start by building capacity within leaders.
    We can't all do it at the classroom level from the State. I
    believe that those closest to the problem have the best hope of
    solving it, and it involves bringing in strong leadership and
    building that.
        I can give you an example of a school district or school,
    McLain High School, that was part of turnaround models of
    coming in and starting over with new people and in a 25-year
    period had 18 new principals. That is a very drastic approach
    that is not working when you have 25 years later you're in the
    same boat.
        We've got to plug stakeholders in to solving things. And
    they've got to be a part of it. It's about building capacity.
        And, truly, the State has authority, but our authority
    needs to be in equipping and supporting. And then we will do
    whatever it takes to make certain that students are not left
    behind and that they have an opportunity--all kids must have,
    really, access to that high-quality education. But it starts
    with building capacity at the local level.
        Chairman Rokita. The gentleman's time has expired. I thank
    the gentleman.
        The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes, Mr.
    Carter.
        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank each of you for being here today. We appreciate
    what you're doing. What you're doing for our students is
    extremely important.
        Ms. Hofmeister, let me start with you. You have the title
    of superintendent of public instruction for the Oklahoma State
    Department of Education. So I'm assuming that you've seen
    different frameworks and different styles across the State.
        I could not help but sense in your opening statement that
    you question somewhat the devolution of power that we feel like
    we've done here at the Federal level. I don't know if that was
    just my sense or if that's what you were trying to portray. Do
    you have some doubts?
        Because I just want to assure you, as someone who voted in
    favor of this bill, it's our intention that the power go back
    to the local governments.
        Ms. Hofmeister. Please don't mistake those comments in any
    way for not appreciating the return of the decisions that
    belong at the State level, where we embrace that.
        What I want you to hear very clearly is, number one, hold
    us accountable for results for kids, but don't tell us how we
    achieve that. We know at the State level, as leaders, what
    works best in our own States. And we share the goal of having
    every one of our children ready for their next steps in
    learning and truly having the full potential realized for them.
        And that's going to take a very strong partnership at local
    levels with stakeholders. So that is something that is very,
    very important to me, and it's actually something I ran on.
        Mr. Carter. Well, let me ask you this, then. Having said
    that, now that you do have this opportunity, what are you going
    to be recommending to help develop the freedom and the
    flexibility in the curriculum? Can you give me just a couple of
    examples of what you're going to be recommending to the public
    schools?
        Ms. Hofmeister. Absolutely. Thank you for the opportunity.
        First of all, what we did, because I was not happy with an
    accountability system that masked the performance of our
    subgroups, one where we do not have truly a light shown on how
    students are performing beyond a label, a collective label.
        We need to have, I think, the use of best practices, the
    latest of research science. So we commissioned work to be done
    with research scientists in our two research universities this
    year. I've been in office for 1 year, so we have completed
    that. We are working also with--they have national reviewers
    look at that, as well.
        We've got to look at what is it that are good measurements
    for outcomes for kids, successful outcomes for kids, and then
    we need to make sure we're measuring that.
        And that's something that should have flexibility over time
    to respond and react to new data and new information. When we
    have a system in place where our hands are bound and we have to
    wait for permission--
        Mr. Carter. Okay.
        Ms. Hofmeister.--then we are unable to accomplish.
        Mr. Carter. Great. Great.
        Dr. Wilson, you being from Alabama and me being from
    Georgia, we are very strongly independent, and we want control.
    What are you going to be implementing? What are you going to be
    suggesting to your school systems, in your particular schools?
    You're the boots on the ground there in the superintendent's
    office.
        Mr. Wilson. We've already begun to do that. We are trying
    to customize our education. We have eight different academies.
    We have children who are leaving our campus. We have kids who
    are going to graduate with a welding degree. We have kids that
    are going to be dually enrolled.
        What we're trying to do is not only provide, you know,
    college- and career-ready, but we're trying to provide the
    right college for students. We have conversations with children
    along the way, and if they tell us they want to do this, this,
    and this, but they want to go to a school that doesn't meet
    that, we want to help them get in there. Everything we do along
    the way helps gets kids where they want to go and need to go.
        We are partnering. In fact, tomorrow we'll be mentioning
    something, that we're partnering with Morgan County Schools
    that have a wonderful auto tech. We have none. I don't have a
    million dollars to spend on auto tech--
        Mr. Carter. I'm very encouraged to hear that.
        Mr. Wilson. We're sending kids to Morgan County. They don't
    have some of the AP offerings we have. They're going to send
    them to us.
        Mr. Carter. Great. Great.
        Mr. Wilson. So we're working together.
        Mr. Carter. We appreciate what you're doing.
        Mr. Talbert, I just want to ask you, from your perspective,
    any words of wisdom to them as they implement this, as they go
    forward now?
        Mr. Talbert. Well, they are the boots on the ground. And so
    look to the text of the statute, watch what happens in
    negotiated rulemaking, watch what proposed regulations are put
    out there, and then read it, understand it, and then apply it.
        Mr. Carter. Great.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Thank you all.
        Chairman Rokita. I want to thank the gentleman.
        Ranking Member Fudge, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you all for your testimony today.
        Mr. Wilson, in your testimony, you state that, like
    politics, all education is local. I'm just curious, do you see
    civil rights as a local issue?
        Mr. Wilson. Certainly--I'm sorry.
        Ms. Fudge. Should a child's right to educational
    opportunity be left to local discretion, or is there a Federal
    role in protecting the civil rights of every child?
        Mr. Wilson.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you.
        It's actually both. It's all of us. The Civil rights is a
    local issue, it's a State issue, it's a national issue. So that
    is something that we're going to meet the kids where they are,
    find out what their needs are, help devise a plan to get them
    where they need to be, and help matriculate them through the
    process.
        Ms. Fudge. Thank you. But you agree it is a Federal issue?
        Mr. Wilson. It's all of us, yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Fudge. That's not my question.
        Mr. Wilson. Okay.
        Ms. Fudge. Is it a Federal issue?
        Mr. Wilson. It's a Federal issue.
        Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Talbert, in 2008, during your tenure as general
    counsel, the Bush administration issued new regulations
    requiring States to use a uniform graduation rate calculation
    for the purpose of accountability, as required by No Child Left
    Behind.
        Why did you believe that it was necessary and appropriate
    for ED to use regulatory authority to define a term like
    ``graduation rate'' when the term wasn't fully defined in
    statute? Do you believe that the enactment of ESSA now makes
    similar clarification of statutory terms unnecessary?
        Mr. Talbert. Well, no. I mean, certainly, ESSA sets forth
    definitions in the text of ``graduation rate,'' and so that's
    what should be adhered to. If it's not clear, then there may
    need to be clarity that's included in regulations, but it's in
    the text.
        Ms. Fudge. Ms. Hofmeister, ESSA aims to ensure that all
    students have the opportunity to attend a high-quality school.
    According to the Alliance for Excellent Education, if
    Oklahoma's graduation rate were to reach 90 percent, the new
    graduates would bring an additional $69 million into the
    economy in earnings, leading to the creation of 500 jobs. And
    that's just for a single class.
        In Oklahoma, there are 24 high schools with an enrollment
    of at least 100 students where one-third or more of the
    students do not graduate. Under ESSA, these schools are
    required to implement comprehensive, evidence-based
    interventions. Can you describe how your State would implement
    this provision and reap those benefits?
        Ms. Hofmeister. Sure. Thank you very much, Congressman.
        And it starts with essential elements that we know are
    evidence-based that will work with local school leaders. And
    for some of them, it is a school principal that is serving in a
    dependent school district as a superintendent, as well. So they
    are the instructional leader as well as dealing with regulation
    that befalls a superintendent on top of that. So it's about
    capacity again.
        The boots on the ground have to understand how to read the
    kind of information to guide smart decision-making. And that is
    where the Department must be able to provide that kind of
    support.
        We have not seen the kind of success we would have expected
    to see in the years under No Child Left Behind. Under the
    particular guidance that has been given federally, we have seen
    these schools not improving. So we have to ask the question of
    why. And I believe that the answer comes when we're able to
    make decisions that fit the community, the challenges specific
    to that community, with the expertise and support at the State
    level.
        We are changing school turnaround in our office because
    that is something in the agency that has not been successful
    and has to be done differently, and we now have that
    flexibility to use best practices and evidence.
        Ms. Fudge. Thank you.
        Another question for you. You said that your current
    accountability system masks subgroup achievement and that is
    unacceptable, and I agree with that.
        Ms. Hofmeister. Absolutely.
        Ms. Fudge. My question is, is there not a Federal role in
    ensuring that other States don't have the same problem?
        Ms. Hofmeister. I think that this is something that every
    State leader bears that responsibility. It is not the
    responsibility of the Federal Government. It is the
    responsibility of our State to care and to provide the kind of
    resources--
        Ms. Fudge. What happens if it doesn't?
        Ms. Hofmeister. Well, I think that there's certainly a
    responsibility at the State level, and that's where--
        Ms. Fudge. What happens if they don't is my question.
        Ms. Hofmeister. Well, we have seen under No Child Left
    Behind that whatever did happen did not work and what is going
    to be--
        Ms. Fudge. I'm talking about ESSA.
        Ms. Hofmeister. On ESSA, we now have the freedom to do what
    we perhaps at some States--and I can't speak for all States--
    but weren't able to do because their hands were tied.
        Ms. Fudge. So who can speak for all States?
        Ms. Hofmeister. So I'll tell you what we'll do in Oklahoma.
        Ms. Fudge. Okay.
        Ms. Hofmeister. In Oklahoma, what we want to do is, first,
    you've got to have face-to-face meetings with people. You can't
    just provide some kind of centralized power that is going to
    actually make changes. And this may sound very simple, but it
    starts with relationships and trying to understand what people
    are facing and help educate those in local school districts to
    be able to really see a vision for where students can go, that
    oftentimes it may be lacking because of inexperience, maybe
    because of a lack of appreciation for best practices, the
    newest work and research.
        And it is a part of the State's obligation to provide that
    kind of professional development and support. But it takes a
    specific plan.
        Chairman Rokita. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
        We'll now hear from the gentleman--excuse me, the gentleman
    from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 minutes. I'm sure we'll hear
    from him.
        Mr. Russell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        There's a lot of discussion about whether or not States are
    able to truly provide the level of detail and the quality of
    education for those with disabilities, lower income, those by
    ethnicity. And we hear this debate back and forth.
        I really have just brief questions.
        Ms. Hofmeister, are you aware that Oklahoma has a higher
    overall graduation rate than, say, the State of Virginia?
        Ms. Hofmeister. Well, we certainly have a graduation rate
    above the national average, including our Native American
    population, which is the largest in the country.
        Mr. Russell. Were you also aware that Oklahoma has a higher
    lower-income graduation rate than, say, the State of Virginia?
        Ms. Hofmeister. I'm not familiar with--
        Mr. Russell. Were you also aware that our disability
    graduation rate in Oklahoma ranks at 78.5 percent as opposed to
    51.5 percent in, say, the State of Virginia?
        What I'm trying to make the point on here is that just
    because there are perceptions of flyover country or, you know,
    different types of notions of what a quality education might
    be, you know, we've shown that when States are empowered with
    the choices, not only are graduation rates higher but we also
    see that in the areas of concern, where we think that the
    Federal Government should have a stronger Federal role--it's
    assumed that the States don't care about these populations,
    which is, I believe, absurd. Of course the States care about
    them.
        And I think Oklahoma, particularly when you look at
    disability graduation rates, I think, leads the country in a
    lot of its outreach and the type of things that it's trying to
    do, you know, for these subgroups.
        It might also be interesting to ask, were you aware that
    the unemployment rate in Oklahoma--meaning to translate from
    graduates to, like, the workforce, which is the stated goal of
    almost all of us--are you aware that Oklahoma's unemployment
    rate is also higher than, say, the State of Virginia?
        Ms. Hofmeister. Yes.
        Mr. Russell. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Hofmeister. It's great
    having you here today.
        And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time.
        Chairman Rokita. I thank the gentleman.
        Ms. Bonamici of Oregon is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    Fudge.
        I'm really glad that part of our discussion here today is
    how we uphold that civil rights legacy that was the original
    intent of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. And,
    certainly, from all the work that we've done in this committee
    and the conference committee, there should be no question that
    the Every Student Succeeds Act is intended to carry on that
    legacy so that all students have access to high-quality
    education.
        ESSA advances this promise by continuing to target
    resources to underserved public schools; by committing Federal
    funds to supplement, not supplant, local investments; by
    requiring States to measure the progress of every student and
    hold each to high standards; by expecting States to identify
    when some students are lagging behind their peers; and also by
    requiring States to take meaningful steps to close opportunity
    and achievement gaps when they're identified.
        Now, without question, No Child Left Behind largely missed
    the mark. It identified too many schools for intervention and
    prescribed interventions that were too rigid. But we shouldn't
    forget why Congress passed No Child Left Behind. Before that
    law, some groups of students, like students with disabilities,
    could effectively disappear in some States' school systems. So
    setting parameters to guarantee each child's right to
    opportunities in public education is fundamentally a Federal
    responsibility.
        So I respectfully disagree when some people say, as I
    believe is in Dr. Wilson's testimony, that Every Student
    Succeeds Act intends for States to be solely responsible for
    decisions regarding accountability. I don't see that as
    accurate.
        The law establishes a lot of conditions to make sure
    accountability systems reflect the intent of Congress to
    identify and require action in schools where students are being
    underserved. That's how Congress advances equity in education.
    And the Department of Education does have a clear role to play
    in interpreting statutory language and establishing parameters,
    consistent with the law and within the scope of the law, of
    course, as has always been the case.
        I want to begin by dispelling a rumor that the Every
    Student Succeeds Act somehow nullifies the Department of
    Education's enforcement authority under the General Education
    Provisions Act, GEPA.
        So I'm going to ask Mr. Talbert and Ms. Almazan, can you
    point to any provision in the Every Student Succeeds Act that
    would alter, limit, or erode the U.S. Department of Education's
    authority, as granted under GEPA, to enforce compliance with
    Federal education law?
        Mr. Talbert. The General Education Provisions Act certainly
    provides authority to the Department, you know, to take
    enforcement actions if necessary. And so that remains even with
    ESSA.
        Ms. Bomanici. Do you agree, Ms. Almazan?
        Ms. Almazan. I do agree. And going all the way back to the
    Administrative Procedures Act of 1946, absolutely.
        Ms. Bomanici. All right.
        Now, in too many schools in my home State of Oregon and
    across the country, students don't have access to the resources
    they need, whether that's advanced coursework, adequate
    technology, classes in career and technical education, arts,
    STEM, et. cetera. So the ESSA aims to close these gaps by not
    only providing extra Federal resources but also promoting more
    equitable allocation of State and local resources to low-
    performing schools that do need additional support to improve.
        So is the statutory language in the ESSA clear enough to
    ensure that equitable resources reach the schools that need the
    most support? And what can the Department do in the regulations
    to ensure that those States and districts are addressing
    persistent resource inequities, as intended by Congress?
        I'll ask Ms. Almazan that question.
        Ms. Almazan. Well, I do think the 1,062 pages--it is clear
    that the Department of Education retains the authority to
    regulate.
        I would have to get back to you on those specific items,
    but we did enumerate in our written testimony those items that
    we do want to see strengthened in Title I of the ESSA. And I
    also do want to draw your attention to that, it is on page 5,
    beginning on page 5 of our comments, our written testimony. And
    I touched on some of them in the oral testimony.
        But we are really looking for rigorous and consistent
    standards. We're looking for the strict State limit of 1
    percent of all students. We are looking for definitions and
    parameters for those new statutory terms, such as ``meaningful
    differentiation,'' ``substantial weight,'' ``much greater
    weight.'' I think that the Department has--we would need the
    guidance from the Department on those areas.
        And looking at the history of going back to 1994 and No
    Child Left Behind and--
        Ms. Bomanici. I'm sorry, Ms. Almazan. I'm going to try to
    get one quick question in, and I'm going to ask Dr. Wilson.
        Probably have to submit your response for the record, but
    you've named the many benefits of local control, but that has
    some risks, too. Whether when you look at expectations for
    students in Hartselle--I hope I said that right--with under 10
    percent of students of color and 30 percent low-income
    students, that might be different for districts where there are
    large concentrations of low-income students.
        So how can we make sure that States and districts will not
    take advantage of flexibility to lower expectations for some
    groups of students, especially in vulnerable communities?
        And because my time has expired, I'm going to ask you to
    submit the response.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Bonamici. I thank the chair.
        Chairman Rokita. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        The gentleman from Pennsylvania is now recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chairman.
        Thanks to all the members of the panel for being here.
        It's an exciting time, with what we've done with repealing
    No Child Left Behind, now with ESSA. We need to be working
    hard. And I appreciate the chairman doing this, because our job
    is oversight. Because without oversight, we will not achieve
    some of our intent that we had with ESSA that I find people are
    universally, whether it's parents, kids, teachers,
    administrators, school board members, are very, very excited
    about.
        Clearly, we're all accountable for our children and for all
    aspects, including education. And I appreciate the trust that
    we have shown in this body and in Congress and with the
    President signing the legislation in really pushing the
    authority, the flexibility, and the control to the State
    levels.
        My request of all of our friends who work in State
    capitals: have that same trust. Push that to the local level
    because they know--it's their children. They don't want their
    children to fail. They want their children to thrive. They want
    their children to get the type of education to where they can
    get great jobs, find those jobs in their home communities, and
    raise our grandchildren.
        I've always believed that there's many different pathways
    to success in life, not just a 4-year institution. I'll do my
    best to work to try to make that affordable and accessible, but
    career and technical education. I've got a son and a daughter-
    in-law who have done great things in their education, earned it
    in the military. Many different paths. Enter right into the
    workforce.
        Dr. Wilson, in your testimony, you mentioned the importance
    of meeting the needs of students who are looking to embark on
    all different types of career pathways. And as co-chair of the
    Career and Technical Education Caucus, I believe that the
    preparation of our students for the 21st-century workforce and
    21st-century jobs is vastly important.
        Now, how will local flexibility give educators the tools to
    empower students to develop more well-rounded leadership,
    academic, and technical skills?
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Congressman.
        We live in the Huntsville area. Huntsville was just
    recently named one of the top three metro areas of its size in
    the United States. It has a wonderful economy, growing very
    quickly. We're in workforce region development 2 in the State
    of Alabama. Part of my job is to understand the types of jobs
    that my students, when they graduate, will be receiving and
    going into those places. It's my job to do that.
        I work closely with Dr. Philip Cleveland, who is over
    workforce development and career tech at the State department,
    and he is boots on the ground. He comes out, makes sure that we
    know what's going on in our areas. Our seven county areas,
    we're competing to get our kids ready for those jobs. I don't
    want those jobs to have to be outsourced. So it's part of my
    job to do whatever I need to do within my curriculum to make
    sure, if we need some pipefitters on the Tennessee River area,
    we've got a way to get a pipefitter teacher. We've got welding
    teachers that do the very same thing.
        We want every one of our children, when they graduate, if
    they want to graduate and not go to college but go into the
    workforce, to be able to graduate with a certification of some
    sort. We have EMT on our campus beginning next year. We're
    looking at putting in CNA, Certified Nursing Assistant. If
    someone wants to go into the nursing, we have a wonderful
    health occupational academy that puts the kids out into the
    nursing field. They can graduate and already be a CNA and be
    working as they go to college at the same time.
        So that's some of the flexibility that's provided to us.
    But going back to what was said earlier, it's about leaders and
    leadership capacity within the district to take that
    flexibility and go with it. You have to be willing to do that.
    And ESSA is providing us that opportunity to do that.
        Mr. Thompson. Have you--and my gut instinct is I don't
    think that a lot of our school districts have done this yet,
    but there's a couple of great resources out there. I was
    wondering if you have partnered with them yet.
        First of all, the workforce investment boards who--that was
    in 2014. This brought put some great leadership into the
    Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. And we put a real
    emphasis on those aged 16 to 29 for the first time, the
    barriers they have to entering the workforce. I'd like to see
    our school districts partner more in a more robust way.
        And just recently something I discovered, despite being the
    chairman of our Agriculture Subcommittee, is our office of
    rural economic development with USDA has monies and programs
    designed around training and retraining of workforce as well
    as, basically, workforce needs. And I think both those maybe
    would be great resources and be a great collaboration.
        So I guess I'll ask if you're familiar with that. And if
    you're not, I would just encourage all school districts to
    check those out.
        Mr. Wilson. We work closely with workforce development
    opportunities in Decatur-Morgan County area and with
    Huntsville. And I will look up that and make sure that we're
    working with those, as well.
        Mr. Thompson. Yeah. USDA was brand-new to me as of last
    week, with a forum I hosted. We had about 80 folks come out,
    and it was pretty exciting to find out what opportunities are
    there that most people don't know about.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Rokita. I thank the gentleman.
        The gentlelady from Massachusetts, Ms. Clark, is recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thanks to all the panelists for being with us today.
        My question first is for you, Ms. Almazan. I am very
    concerned with some of the aversive behavior punishments that
    we see, including seclusion, restraint, expulsion, suspensions,
    which disproportionately affect students of color and students
    with disabilities. In Massachusetts, just in the last school
    year, we had 603 preschoolers suspended from their programs.
        I'm very grateful; we fought hard to have many of the
    trauma-informed practices included in the ESSA. And can you
    speak to COPAA's regulatory recommendations in this area?
        Ms. Almazan. Sure.
        COPAA has had a statement of principles for quite some time
    on restraint and seclusion, and it is something that COPAA has
    been integrally involved in for quite some time, particularly
    working with Congressman Van Hollen in the introduction of the
    Keeping All Students Safe Act. That has been introduced, I
    think, every session since 2009.
        The statistics, if you just look at the GAO study back from
    2008 or 2009, are horrific, and the effect on children of being
    restrained or secluded in the manner that they're being
    restrained and secluded are very alarming.
        I looked at that data recently from your home State and was
    really shocked to see how many students had been suspended and
    expelled for behavior that is just typical, particularly for
    children of color. I have been a practicing attorney for nearly
    30 years and primarily represent families of color, families
    who live in poverty, and it is always stunned me that they are
    disproportionately affected by these practices.
        We know all of the horrific things that can happen to
    children when they are restrained or when they are secluded. We
    know that schools at times are not equipped to manage behavior
    in a way that is authentic and that looks at the circumstances
    that the students come from. I think that looking at the
    trauma-informed practices is very important, something that,
    frankly, we are all just learning about.
        I think that, very importantly, we have now raised to a
    national discussion the student resource officers in our school
    buildings with the effect of cellphone cameras, and we can see
    what those of us who have been on the ground representing
    families for many years have seen always in police reports and
    in expulsion proceedings and in discipline proceedings. Those
    cellphone videos expose for the world what those of us who have
    been in the trenches in civil rights have seen for many, many
    years.
        Ms. Clark. And you said in your testimony that, often, the
    effect of no regulations means that the courts are left to be
    the experts. How do you see that particularly working if there
    weren't any further regulations in this area for families?
        Ms. Almazan. Well, we have a whole rich history in the
    Rehabilitation Act of 1973, when there was a statute, a civil
    rights statute, for people of disabilities that talked about
    people who are otherwise qualified, talked about people with
    disabilities, talked about reasonable accommodations, and we
    had no regulations, and people were forced to go to court, and
    courts were trying to interpret the statute. There were no
    regulations interpreting it.
        And the disability community took a page from the civil
    rights community and staged a takeover of a Federal building
    for 28 days in San Francisco until they could get their
    regulations from HEW. And as a matter of fact--
        Ms. Clark. Thank you so much. I want to get one question
    in--
        Ms. Almazan. Thanks.
        Ms. Clark.--for Mr. Talbert.
        During your tenure as general counsel, regulations were
    promulgated that gave States more flexibility to exempt
    recently arrived English learners from State assessments. This
    was an allowance that was clearly not defined in statute.
        Would it be fair to limit the Secretary's authority to
    issue regulations that actually provide more flexibility in key
    areas? And how is this any different from the Secretary's
    authority to issue other clarifications or interpretations of
    existing statute?
        And you may have to respond in writing, since I'm about to
    expire.
        Mr. Talbert. Sure. I'll be happy to supplement my response
    in writing. But, again, in essence, you see what the text says,
    and then if it needs clarifying, if there's some ambiguity,
    then there may be a need to write a regulation to deal with
    that.
        With respect to guidance, if the Department sought to issue
    guidance, they, again, would need to make sure that is within
    the contours of the text of the statute and that it doesn't
    stray beyond into making new law, so to speak.
        But I'd be happy to supplement.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Clark. All right. Thank you.
        Chairman Rokita. The gentlelady's time has expired. I thank
    the gentlelady.
        The gentlelady from California, Mrs. Davis, is recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
    appreciate that. I'm doing a ranking over in the other
    committee, and so I appreciate being able to come in and have a
    chance to hear from all of you.
        Mr. Wilson, if I might just ask you more about this,
    because I know on the Web site in your school district it
    states that the student population is a tremendous
    representation of diversity in ethnicity and socioeconomic
    levels, having approximately about 7 percent minority and 30
    percent qualifying for free and reduced lunch programs, and,
    also, school districts across your State enroll more than about
    40 percent minority students and 50 percent low-income
    students. So I really wanted to ask you more about that.
        And from San Diego Unified School District--that's the
    largest city that I represent. I actually served on that board
    for 9 years quite a few years ago. And nearly about 60 percent
    of the students there are low-income. More than a quarter of
    the district's enrollment is limited English proficient.
        We know that history has really told us strong Federal
    guardrails to hold systems accountable for improving outcomes
    for all students - low-income, students of color--are sometimes
    ignored. And even from my own experience a number of years ago,
    I know that sometimes we're--we want to make sure that we're
    giving to all groups, whether or not they are the ones who are
    most vulnerable at any particular time.
        So you have testified that the role of the Federal
    Government is to simply support public schools by equally
    applying broad flexibility. And in that, as I understand it,
    there was no mention of the Federal Government's role in
    promoting educational equity.
        So part of my question is whether you feel that, at least
    from what your experience has been, that equity has been
    achieved, and that we don't really need to focus like a laser,
    I guess, on this issue. And I'm wondering whether we can learn
    from communities that are more homogeneous and well-resourced,
    whether or not they are really representative of our Nation's
    public schools today.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you.
        Schools are microcosms of the communities they represent.
    The diversity we have in Hartselle is the diversity we have in
    Hartselle because it is the footprint of Hartselle.
        I was a principal at Homewood High School, and Homewood
    High School is a suburban area just contiguous to Birmingham
    and had diversity--one would look at that diversity, and be
    very clear from the traditional sense of what is diversity--60
    percent, 25 percent, 10 percent, so forth and so on. When one
    looks at our diversity and sees 90 percent and then 10 percent
    of everything else, that is putting diversity back in the box
    over traditional diversity.
        We have a lot of transients, as well, that's not spoken and
    not seen in that diversity. That's the biggest issue we face.
    The biggest issue we face is the child who comes to us 1 month
    and then 3 months later goes somewhere else and then 3 months
    later comes back to us. We deal with those kids on a regular
    basis.
        Mrs. Davis. And, of course, in many of these districts that
    are so heterogeneous, they have that issue, as well.
        Mr. Wilson. That's exactly right.
        Mrs. Davis. That's a basic part of it.
        Mr. Wilson. And to answer your question, it's an answer
    that you've got to pinpoint the places where it's not working.
    And that's where extra care and concern has to go from either
    the local group, the State group. And if that doesn't work,
    that's when the Federal steps in.
        Mrs. Davis. Uh-huh. So you do see a Federal role in that.
        Mr. Wilson. As I stated, there certainly is a role for the
    Federal. But the boots on the ground at the local level and the
    State level is where, I believe, having been in my situation--
        Mrs. Davis. Well, what would you like to see the State
    doing then?
        Mr. Wilson. I would like what the State's doing,
    essentially what the ESSA's doing: saying to local leaders, go
    out there and meet the needs and exceed the needs of the
    students in your area. Meet those needs. That's what you want
    to see.
        You want to see the ability to go out there and let that
    leadership capacity--don't hold me back, don't grab me, okay,
    because I'm wanting to move forward because everybody else
    isn't moving forward. At the same time, we're going to have to
    figure out a way to prod those who won't move forward.
        Mrs. Davis. Yeah. And do you see that sometimes that means
    really difficult challenges or decisions that have be made to--
        Mr. Wilson. It's the most difficult--
        Mrs. Davis.--remove--
        Mr. Wilson. It's the most difficult challenge.
        Mrs. Davis.--services in some cases--
        Mr. Talbert. It really is.
        Mrs. Davis.--from other students?
        Mr. Wilson. Yes, ma'am.
        Mrs. Davis. Okay. Thank you very much, sir.
        Chairman Rokita. I thank the gentlelady.
        The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Polis, is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Polis. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
        My first question is for Mr. Talbert.
        In your judgment, did the Department under the previous
    authorizing law, No Child Left Behind, promulgate any
    regulations that resulted in new requirements that were
    inconsistent with or outside the scope of No Child Left Behind?
        Mr. Talbert. Yeah, it's a hard question to answer, to think
    back to everything we did--
        Mr. Polis. That you're aware of.
        Mr. Talbert.--you know, during that period. I mean, I can't
    say with certainly, but that--you know, that I'm aware of.
        Mr. Polis. And, again, I think you touted in your testimony
    some of the provisions around ensuring that the Federal
    Government is prohibited from being involved with any
    requirement, direction, or mandate to adopt the Common Core
    standards.
        Where that prohibition didn't exist under the previous
    authorizing law, do you agree, also, that there was no specific
    authority given for the Department to interfere with those
    decisions under the previous authorizing law either?
        Mr. Talbert. Correct. But they did have conditional waivers
    wherein certain conditions were added to waiver requests. And
    so there were certain things where--
        Mr. Polis. And, reclaiming my time, of course, the waiver
    authority wound up being what we used because of the failures
    in the underlying accountability metrics of the law. It
    essentially all became a waiver law. I don't think that was the
    original intent of Congress. That's why we're all grateful that
    we're here replacing it.
        I'd be happy to yield if you wanted to address that.
        Mr. Talbert. Sure. Sure. But, again, I mean, the waiver
    authority, it exists to waive provisions. It does not exist to
    affirmatively add new conditions or requirements. And that was
    what was taking place.
        Mr. Polis. And my next question is for Superintendent
    Hofmeister.
        I'm sure you're aware of research from the University of
    Oklahoma and Oklahoma State that showed that Oklahoma's waiver
    accountability system, ``hid low test performance of poor and
    minority students''.
        In your argument, you testify with an argument for
    flexibility granted by waivers that allows you to strengthen
    accountability measures and that you need more flexibility
    under ESSA.
        How can we be sure that Oklahoma and also, more generally,
    any State is using the flexibility for the right reasons rather
    than the wrong reasons? How can we ensure that you and other
    superintendents at the State level don't take advantage of the
    flexibility to sweep low performance of some subgroups of
    students under the rug?
        Ms. Hofmeister. Well, thank you very much, Congressman. And
    I think what you must look at is what we have done. I
    commissioned that study.
        Mr. Polis. And I'm not asking--I don't mean this in an
    accusatory way. I mean, at the Federal level, how can we make
    sure that States are not using the flexibility for the wrong
    reasons?
        Ms. Hofmeister. I think the way you examine whether that is
    working is to hold States accountable for results for students.
    And that includes students in our protected groups. That is
    where we need to have a greater flashlight.
        And we've got to be able to keep up with the, you know,
    ways to view that and then respond with the most research-
    based, new, if that is needed, intervention. But it's got to be
    acting on evidence, not anecdotal information or not
    perception. And I believe that we will do that. We are eager to
    do that. These are our kids. These are our--the future of our
    State.
        Mr. Polis. And, again, I mean, at the State level--and,
    obviously, many of your district superintendents would say,
    ``we at the district level''; at the building level, they'd
    say, ``we at the building level.'' But we, obviously, here on
    this panel at the Federal level, how do we, in dealing with the
    States, make sure that a State superintendent, a State
    commissioner is not using the flexibility for the wrong reasons
    to kind of mask low performance of minority students?
        Ms. Hofmeister. Well, I think that we have to accept the
    fact that at the State level I am held accountable to the
    people of the State of Oklahoma. And that is the way this works
    at the State level for each different State.
        Mr. Polis. Well, reclaiming my time, the fundamental
    problem with that, and getting back to the question of whether
    civil rights is a local, State, or Federal concern, is, yes,
    you're accountable to the voters in our State--we have a State
    board that are - um but you're not elected by a minority of the
    voters, you're elected by a majority of the voters, and yet
    you're accountable for the public education system that serves
    all students, including traditionally disenfranchised
    minorities and others, who may or may not have voted for you,
    may or may not have voted for other people that run in the
    race.
        So there's more to it than just politics. There's a civil
    rights aspect that transcends politics. And that, of course, is
    our Federal interest, as Dr. Wilson mentioned, as well.
        I want to go to Ms. Almazan for the last 15 or 20 seconds
    you'll have to answer this. But I wanted to ask about Title I
    regulations revolving alternative assessments and alternative
    achievement standards. Both Democratic and Republican
    administrations have found that allowing States some
    flexibility for students with disabilities has done this.
        What's at stake to make sure that we continue the proper
    accountability for students with disabilities? I think you'll
    have to submit that to me in writing, Ms. Almazan, but if we
    can talk about, in writing, that whole area of alternative
    assessments. And, of course, we maintain that cap in this new
    law.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Polis. I'm very grateful for the time, Mr. Chairman,
    and I yield back.
        Chairman Rokita. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman's
    time has expired.
        I'll recognize myself now for 5 minutes.
        It's been a very interesting discussion. I want to thank
    each and every one of our witnesses again for their testimony.
        I want to focus on Dr. Wilson's testimony and the exchange
    with Mrs. Davis from California. I want you to recognize that
    at the last few seconds she said: The only way sometimes that
    you can serve those that need it is by taking services away
    from others. And I want to make sure that it's recognized that
    was her opinion and not necessarily your testimony, unless it
    was, and then say so.
        Mr. Wilson. That was not my testimony.
        Chairman Rokita. Right.
        I also find it amazing that only here in Washington can a
    man put on his Web site that he wants to treat everyone equally
    and that somehow be a bad thing. It's ridiculous, in fact. And
    that's my opinion.
        Mr. Talbert, there was some discussion going on about the
    General Education Provision Act, and you were asked about that
    and how that did not, in fact, limit the Secretary's authority.
        I want to rehabilitate that discussion a little bit,
    because isn't it true that act is basically the jurisdictional
    provision for the Department? That is to say, the Department
    will focus on education issues. In no way does the GEPA somehow
    nullify or limit a more specific statute, if you want to talk
    about rules of construction, like ESSA that certainly,
    regarding specific areas, does limit the Secretary's authority
    just as Congress intended.
        Sir?
        Mr. Talbert. Correct. It doesn't nullify those very
    specific provisions that deal more directly with the issues you
    mentioned.
        Chairman Rokita. All right.
        And, by the way, while I have you, I had to cut you off
    because you were way too long, but is there anything in your
    written remarks that you want to take a minute right now to go
    and focus on?
        Mr. Talbert. Nothing, other than just to reinforce the
    whole theme of the law, which is more State and local control.
    That, indeed, when the Department was first set up in 1979-
    1980, that was some of the--the findings and the purpose
    statements of that law specifically provided that, that State
    and locals have primary responsibility for education and that
    the Feds supplement that.
        Chairman Rokita. Uh-huh. Thank you.
        And since you have experience in the Department--and I've
    been listening to this exchange about clarifying things. In
    your experience at the Department, when you were there, was
    there ever a culture where you all took a perfectly defined
    part of the law, something that was specifically defined, and
    reinterpreted it, ignored it, or did something other than
    simply clarify ambiguous parts of the law?
        Mr. Talbert. No. You take the law as you have it, and then
    you seek to implement it to the best of your ability. And if
    it's necessary to clarify, you clarify it as well.
        Chairman Rokita. Right. When it's necessary to clarify, not
    when it doesn't suit your political ideology?
        Mr. Talbert. Correct.
        Chairman Rokita. Okay. And it's your opinion that the
    culture has changed at the Department in that regard or not?
        Mr. Talbert. I'm not quite--
        Chairman Rokita. And you've got clients before the
    Department, so I understand the sensitivity there, but I'd
    appreciate an honest answer.
        Mr. Talbert. Sorry. Can you rephrase the question?
        Chairman Rokita. I'm known to be pretty direct, so I'm not
    sure I can do that.
        Let me go here. You mentioned negotiated rulemaking.
        Mr. Talbert. Right.
        Chairman Rokita. Is that a change from No Child Left
    Behind? And if so, what might we expect differently?
        Mr. Talbert. Well, sure, there are some changes in the
    statute as to negotiated rulemaking and the requirement that,
    once they come up with a rule, they need to submit it to the
    committees so that they can see it and look at it before it
    then goes public in the Federal Register. That's certainly one
    change.
        Chairman Rokita. Okay. And that's different around here
    how, specifically? How is it usually done?
        Mr. Talbert. Well, there was no previous provision. I mean,
    they could go straight from negotiated rulemaking--once they
    get a consensus, they could go straight and publish it in the
    Federal Register with an NPRM without having to first check
    in--
        Chairman Rokita. Notice of proposed rulemaking, for those
    watching at home. Right? NPRM.
        Mr. Talbert. Yes, notice of proposed rulemaking.
        Chairman Rokita. All right. And so this was a good change
    and reform and improvement, or not?
        Mr. Talbert. Well, it gives a role for Congress, actually,
    in making sure that it follows the intent of the law.
        Chairman Rokita. Right. Thank you.
        In the time I have left, I will ask if Ms. Hofmeister from
    Oklahoma would like to add anything to the discussion she's
    heard.
        Ms. Hofmeister. Thank you very much, Chairman.
        This is about equity. It's about an equity issue for all
    kids to close achievement gaps, to close an opportunity gap
    that exists. And we at the State level stand ready to lead in
    that effort.
        Chairman Rokita. I thank you.
        I'll yield the balance of my time and recognize the ranking
    member for any closing remarks.
        Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to
    yield to the ranking member, Mr. Scott.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, previously in the hearing, the gentleman from
    Oklahoma made some disparaging remarks about what he called the
    State of Virginia. I'd just like to indicate that the
    Commonwealth of Virginia did extremely well and, actually,
    better than Oklahoma on the NAEP test, which is the standard
    for comparing jurisdictions across the country.
        And I'd like to enter into the record the scores of each of
    the States. Virginia actually did better on each of the
    standards that he mentioned during his testimony.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Scott.I yield back.
        Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much.
        Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me first thank you all for being here.
        Certainly, I do agree that States need to be held
    accountable, which does, in fact, require an oversight role.
    But let me also say that there are a lot of problems in our
    States that have nothing to do with flexibility, absolutely
    nothing. We put kids in crumbling buildings. We have class
    sizes that are too large. States continue to cut funding for K-
    12 education. A lot of what is wrong with our schools has
    nothing to do with flexibility.
        But I do agree that there is a role. Now, hopefully that
    role is limited, but it is clearly authorized and it is clearly
    necessary that the Federal Government ensures that every child
    has a right to a quality education.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Rokita. I thank the gentlelady.
        Let me thank our witnesses again. I appreciate your
    passion. I appreciate your expertise, each one of you, in what
    you've brought to the table so far in your careers and what's
    going to be expected of you going forward.
        We will be here. We will be here as partners, perhaps.
    Maybe that's not the right word; maybe it is. But we will be
    doing our congressional oversight function.
        I think this law, as one of the authors of it, moved the
    ball down field a significant amount, in terms of having
    Congress, Mr. Talbert, write its laws with more specificity so
    that there's less for the agency to do--let's put it that way--
    or less that they should do.
        I think the ball has moved down the field in the fact that,
    yes, accountability, we agree, as parents, as taxpayers, as
    voters, as leaders, elected or not, accountability is a good
    thing in life.
        But, Ms. Hofmeister, it's going to be up to you now to
    decide what success is and what it looks like. And you'll be
    held accountable to your voters and taxpayers.
        And you, too, Dr. Wilson.
        And that's the goal here. And we expect it to work well, we
    want it to work well, because we're all in this together for
    the very same reasons: to have the next generation better off
    in every respect than we were so that they can fight and serve
    in a 21st-century world and win. And, again, that's what brings
    us here today.
        I'd ask unanimous consent to insert in the record a letter
    sent this morning from a coalition of groups, the State and
    Local ESSA Implementation Network, to Acting Secretary John
    King, urging him to honor that congressional intent that I just
    spoke of and that we talked about it here this morning.
        The letter is signed by the National Governors Association;
    the National Conference of State Legislatures; the National
    Association of State Boards of Education; the National School
    Boards Association; AASA, The School Superintendents
    Association; the National Association of Elementary School
    Principals; the National Association of Secondary School
    Principals; the American Federation of Teachers; the National
    Education Association; and the National PTA.
        The letter states, quote, ``ESSA is clear: Education
    decision-making now rests with the States and districts, and
    the Federal role is to support and form those decisions.''
        So, with no objection, I'll enter this into the record.
        Hearing no objection, the letter is inserted.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Rokita. And, with that, I have no further business
    before the committee, and we are adjourned.
        [Additional submission by Ms. Fudge follow:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                              [all]