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

                         NEXT STEPS FOR K-12 EDUCATION:
                        UPHOLDING THE LETTER AND INTENT
                              OF THE EVERY STUDENT
                                  SUCCEEDS ACT

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

                                     HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

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

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

               HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 25, 2016

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-40

                                   __________

      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
    98-732 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

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on February 25, 2016................................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Kline, Hon. John, Chairman, Committee on Education and the
          Workforce..................................................    01
            Prepared statement of....................................     3
        Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'', Ranking Member, Committee on
          Education and the Workforce................................     4
            Prepared statement of....................................     6

    Statement of Witnesses:
        King, John B., Hon., Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of
          Education..................................................     7
            Prepared statement of....................................    10

    Additional Submissions:
        Mr. Scott:
            Letter dated February 25, 2016 from Dignity In Schools...    58
        Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from the
          state of Pennsylvania:
            Letter dated February 25, 2016 from National School
              Boards Association (NSBA)..............................    61
        Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the state
          of South Carolina:
            Prepared statement of....................................    70
        Questions submitted for the record by:
            Chairman Kline...........................................    74
            Mr. Thompson.............................................    77
            Messer, Hon. Luke, a Representative in Congress from the
              state of Indiana.......................................    77
        Acting Secretary King, response to questions submitted for
          the record.................................................    79

                         NEXT STEPS FOR K-12 EDUCATION:
                        UPHOLDING THE LETTER AND INTENT
                       OF THE EVERY STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT

                                  ----------

                           Thursday, February 25, 2016

                            House of Representatives

                    Committee on Education and the Workforce

                                Washington, D.C.

        The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room
    2175 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Kline [chairman
    of the committee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Kline, Wilson of South Carolina,
    Foxx, Roe, Thompson, Walberg, Guthrie, Rokita, Barletta,
    Messer, Byrne, Carter, Bishop, Grothman, Curbelo, Stefanik,
    Allen, Scott, Hinojosa, Davis, Courtney, Fudge, Polis, Wilson
    of Florida, Bonamici, Pocan, Takano, Clark, Adams, and
    DeSaulnier.
        Staff Present: Janelle Gardner, Coalitions and Members
    Services Coordinator; Kathlyn Ehl, Professional Staff Member;
    Tyler Hernandez, Press Secretary; Amy Raaf Jones, Director of
    Education and Human Resources Policy; Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk;
    Dominique McKay, Deputy Press Secretary; Brian Newell,
    Communications Director; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel;
    Lauren Reddington, Deputy Press Secretary; Alex Ricci,
    Legislative Assistant; 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; Saloni Sharma, Minority
    Press Assistant; Michael Taylor, Minority Education Policy
    Fellow; and Arika Trim, Minority Press Secretary.
        Chairman Kline. A quorum being present, the
        Committee on Education and the Workforce will come to
    order.
        Good morning, welcome back.
        Mr. King. Thank you very much.
        Chairman Kline. We really appreciate the opportunity to
    have you with us twice in one week. I know that is unusual.
    Today, we are going to discuss the steps the Department of
    Education is taking and will be taking to implement the Every
    Student Succeeds Act.
        Replacing No Child Left Behind was a significant
    achievement that was desperately needed and long overdue. The
    law represented the largest expansion of Federal control over
    K-12 schools, and it was based on the flawed premise that
    Washington knows best what students need in the classroom.
        The Federal Government imposed rigid rules and punitive
    actions on States and schools in areas vital to a child's
    education, like which teachers to hire and fire, how to gauge
    school performance, and how to fix underperforming schools.
        It did not take long before State and local leaders were
    raising concerns that this top-down approach would not work.
    Their concerns were affirmed year after year as we experienced
    little, if any, improvement in graduation rates, proficiency in
    reading and math, and the achievement gaps separating poor and
    minority students from their peers. Frustration among parents
    and teachers went up, while student achievement remained
    largely flat. Despite the good intentions behind the law, and
    they were good intentions, millions of children were left
    behind.
        To make matters worse, the administration spent years
    pushing a convoluted waiver scheme, which doubled down on the
    false hope that Washington could fix the problems in our
    schools. States and schools were subjected to even more Federal
    requirements in areas like standards and teacher evaluations.
    They were forced to choose between onerous requirements
    prescribed in Federal law and onerous requirements prescribed
    by the Secretary of Education.
        If we learned anything throughout the process to replace No
    Child Left Behind, it is that the American people are tired of
    Washington micromanaging their classrooms. They are desperate
    for a different approach to K-12 education, one that will
    significant reduce the Federal role and restore store and local
    control. This is precisely the approach taken by the Every
    Student Succeeds Act.
        Under the new law, authority over accountability, teacher
    quality, and school improvement is restored to State and local
    leaders. The law also brings new transparency and
    accountability to the department's rulemaking process, ends the
    era of federally mandated high-stakes testing, repeals dozens
    of ineffective programs, and sets the department on the path of
    becoming smaller, not bigger.
        Furthermore, due to the administration's actions in recent
    years and the public outcry that ensued, the Every Student
    Succeeds Act includes unprecedented restrictions on the
    authority of the Secretary of Education, ending the days when
    one individual imposed his or her own agenda on our classrooms.
        The Wall Street Journal described the new law as quote
    ``The largest devolution of Federal control to the States in a
    quarter-century,'' close quote.
        A letter written by a coalition of organizations
    representing governors, State lawmakers, teachers, parents,
    principals, and superintendents says ``The Every Student
    Succeeds Act is clear, education decision-making now rests with
    States and districts, and the Federal role is to support and
    inform those decisions.'' They also urge the Department of
    Education to honor congressional intent, which brings us to the
    heart of today's hearing.
        Despite our success in replacing No Child Left Behind, the
    real work to improve K-12 education is just beginning. The
    focus now shifts to leaders in State capitals and local
    communities who will use the tools and authority in the new law
    to build a better education for their children. If they are
    going to succeed, they will need a Department of Education that
    behaves like a partner, not a dictator.
        I have described countless times the shortfalls of No Child
    Left Behind. While it may seem unnecessary at a hearing on the
    future of K-12 education, we need to remember where we have
    been as we look to where we want to go.
        Congress did not want to repeat the mistakes of the past,
    and we certainly did not want a Department of Education that
    would continue to substitute its will for the will of Congress
    and the American people.
        Quite the opposite, we wanted new policies that would
    empower parents, teachers, and State and local education
    leaders. Congress promised to reduce the Federal role and
    restore local control, and we intend to keep our promise.
        That is why we are here today. We want to learn what
    actions the department intends to take to implement the law and
    help ensure the department acts in a manner that strictly
    adheres to the letter and intent of the law.
        Dr. King, this committee stands ready to assist you in that
    effort. The reforms you are now implementing were the result of
    bipartisan consensus, and we will remain actively engaged as
    the department moves forward. There is a lot of work to do,
    especially in every State and school district across the
    country. The department must get this right so every child can
    receive the excellent education they deserve.
        I want to thank you again for being with us today. I know
    it is a very big day for you. Again, I wish you good luck in
    this afternoon's endeavor. I will now recognize Mr. Scott for
    his opening remarks.
        [The The Statement of Chairman Kline follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Hon. John Kline, Chairman
                    Committee on Education and the Workforce

        Good morning. Welcome back, Acting Secretary King. Again, we
    appreciate the opportunity to have you with us twice in one week. Today
    we will discuss the steps the Department of Education is taking and
    will be taking to implement the Every Student Succeeds Act.
        Replacing No Child Left Behind was a significant achievement that
    was desperately needed and long overdue. The law represented the
    largest expansion of federal control over K-12 schools, and it was
    based on the flawed premise that Washington knows best what students
    need in the classroom. The federal government imposed rigid rules and
    punitive actions on states and schools in areas vital to a child's
    education, like which teachers to hire and fire, how to gauge school
    performance, and how to fix underperforming schools.
        It didn't take long before state and local leaders were raising
    concerns that this top-down approach wouldn't work. Their concerns were
    affirmed year after year as we experienced little - if any -
    improvement in graduation rates, proficiency in reading and math, and
    the achievement gap separating poor and minority students from their
    peers. Frustration among parents and teachers went up, while student
    achievement remained flat. Despite the good intentions behind the law,
    millions of children were left behind.
        To make matters worse, the administration spent years pushing a
    convoluted waiver scheme, which doubled-down on the false hope that
    Washington could fix the problems in our schools. States and schools
    were subjected to even more federal requirements in areas like
    standards and teacher evaluations. They were forced to choose between
    onerous requirements prescribed in federal law and onerous requirements
    prescribed by the secretary of education.
        If we learned anything throughout process to replace No Child Left
    Behind, it's that the American people are tired of Washington
    micromanaging their classrooms. They are desperate for a different
    approach to K-12 education, one that will significantly reduce the
    federal role and restore state and local control. That is precisely the
    approach taken by the Every Student Succeeds Act.
        Under the new law, authority over accountability, teacher quality,
    and school improvement is restored to state and local leaders. The law
    also brings new transparency and accountability to the department's
    rulemaking process, ends the era of federally-mandated high-stakes
    testing, repeals dozens of ineffective programs, and sets the
    department on the path to becoming smaller, not bigger. Furthermore,
    due to the administration's actions in recent years and the public
    outcry that ensued, the Every Student Succeeds Act includes
    unprecedented restrictions on the authority of the secretary of
    education, ending the days when one individual imposed his or her own
    agenda on our classrooms.
        The Wall Street Journal described the new law as the ``largest
    devolution of federal control to the states in a quarter-century.'' A
    letter written by a coalition of organizations representing governors,
    state lawmakers, teachers, parents, principals, and superintendents
    says, ``[The Every Student Succeeds Act] is clear: Education decision-
    making now rests with states and districts, and the federal role is to
    support and inform those decisions.'' They also urge the Department of
    Education to ``honor congressional intent,'' which brings us to the
    heart of today's hearing.
        Despite our success replacing No Child Left Behind, the real work
    to improve K-12 education is just beginning. The focus now shifts to
    leaders in state capitals and local communities who will use the tools
    and authority in the new law to build a better education for their
    children. And if they are going to succeed, they will need a Department
    of Education that behaves like a partner - not dictator.
        I've described countless times the shortfalls of No Child Left
    Behind. While it may seem unnecessary at a hearing on the future of K-
    12 education, we need to remember where we have been as we look to
    where we want to go. Congress did not want to repeat the mistakes of
    the past, and we certainly did not want a Department of Education that
    would continue to substitute its will for the will of Congress and the
    American people. Quite the opposite, we wanted new policies that would
    empower parents, teachers, and state and local education leaders.
    Congress promised to reduce the federal role and restore local control,
    and we intend to keep our promise.
        That's why we are here today. We want to learn what actions the
    department intends to take to implement the law and to help ensure the
    department acts in a manner that strictly adheres to the letter and
    intent of the law. Dr. King, this committee stands ready to assist you
    in that effort. The reforms you are now implementing were the result of
    bipartisan consensus, and we will remain actively engaged as the
    department moves forward. There is a lot of work to do, especially in
    every state and school district across the country. The department must
    get this right so every child can receive the excellent education they
    deserve.
        Thank you again for being with us today. I will now recognize
    Ranking Member Scott for his opening remarks.
                                     ______

        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we are
    here today to discuss the critical role of the Department of
    Education in implementing the Every Student Succeeds Act.
        We came together last year to write and pass a strong
    bipartisan law that was worthy of the President's signature.
    This was no small feat, and I am proud of our collective
    effort. I am proud of the role the House Democrats played in
    producing a new K-12 education law that I believe will fulfill
    the ESEA's original promise as a fundamental civil rights law.
        At a time when Congress is often chastised for its
    brokenness and lack of compromise, we clearly accomplished a
    great deal by coming to a consensus to pass this major
    legislation, but passing legislation is only one step.
        We all agree that fulfilling the promise of Every Student
    Succeeds Act rests on successful implementation that honors
    Congress' long-standing commitment and intent of the ESEA; that
    is promoting and protecting the right to an educational
    opportunity for every child, regardless of race, income,
    language status, or disability.
        ESSA repealed the one-size-fits-all approach of No Child
    Left Behind with increased flexibility for States and school
    districts, but with flexibility comes responsibility. States
    will be tasked with developing new multimeasure accountability
    systems, implementing more innovative assessment systems, and
    providing support to school districts to ensure that low
    performing schools improve and meet the needs of all students.
        Getting this right will be hard work. The Federal
    Government has an important role to play in setting high
    expectations both for systems and for the students those
    systems serve. We have to maintain vigorous oversight and
    enforcement to ensure that these expectations are met.
        Simply put, ESSA returns the decision-making to the States
    and local government, but this new law is not a blank check.
    There are Federal guidelines, and States and school districts
    must comply with those guidelines, and an appropriate
    regulatory framework is necessary to ensure that States and
    school districts are empowered to fully comply with the Federal
    law.
        We know from experience that when Federal Government turns
    a blind eye or leaves States without a meaningful regulatory
    framework, it is the most vulnerable children, children of
    color, English learners, students with disabilities, and low-
    income students who frequently lose out.
        We experienced this under both Democratic and Republican
    administrations. That is why I am glad to see the Department of
    Education, under the leadership of Acting Secretary King, the
    Department is quickly beginning the process to faithfully
    implement the new law.
        Part of the process as dictated by the Administrative
    Procedures Act will be the Department of Education's
    promulgation of rules and regulations to clarify the language
    and statutory terms and requirements. This congressionally
    dictated responsibility is critical to helping the States and
    districts move forward expeditiously.
        While the statute includes some specific restrictions on
    Federal prescription in limited circumstances, not a single
    provision of the law prevents the Department of Education from
    promulgating regulations, including important areas like
    assessments, accountability, and interventions.
        Now Secretary King is not the only one with important work
    to do. As we move forward, State chiefs, State legislatures,
    and school districts must work collaboratively with all the
    stakeholders to ensure that the voices of parents, teachers,
    students, and civil rights communities are heard in State
    capitals and school board meetings across the country.
        I understand that over 370 organizations and individuals
    have already provided recommendations to the department
    regarding the regulatory process. In my own reading of the
    public comments, I saw many individuals and groups requesting
    additional regulatory clarity, and this includes the
    Secretary's responsibility to define vague terms, set
    appropriate parameters, and providing options to fulfill the
    new legal requirements.
        In addition, the State and local leaders will need to rise
    to the occasion and recognize their important responsibility to
    fight for strong student focused policies.
        I look forward to hearing from the Acting Secretary today
    and at his confirmation hearing this afternoon, so I hope we
    can remove the ``Acting'' part of his title very soon. We're
    look forward to hearing his testimony about what we can do to
    faithfully implement the law in a way that honors Congress'
    intent to protect the civil rights of all students.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The Statement of Ranking Member Scott follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Ranking Member,
                    Committee on Education and the Workforce

        Mr. Chairman, we are here today to discuss the critical role of the
    Department of Education in the implementation of the Every Student
    Succeeds Act.
        Early last year, this committee's process for reauthorization of
    the Elementary and Secondary Education act started as partisan and
    ideological. We marked up and passed a bill that the White House, House
    Democrats, and the education and civil rights communities resoundingly
    rejected.
        But ultimately, we came together to write and pass a strong
    bipartisan law that was worthy of the President's signature. This was
    no small feat, and I am proud of our collective effort. I am proud of
    the role House Democrats played in producing a new K-12 education law
    that I believe will fulfill the ESEA's promise as a fundamental civil
    rights law.
        At a time when Congress is often chastised for its brokenness and
    lack of compromise, we clearly accomplished a great deal by coming to
    consensus to pass this major legislation.
        But passing legislation is only one step of many. We all agree that
    the fulfilling the promise of the Every Student Succeeds Act rests in
    successful implementation that honors Congress' longstanding commitment
    and intent of the ESEA: promoting and protecting the right to
    educational opportunity for every child, regardless of race, income,
    language status, or disability.
        ESSA repealed the one-size-fits-all approach of No Child Left
    Behind with increased flexibility for states and school districts. But,
    with flexibility comes responsibility. States will be tasked with
    developing new multi-measure accountability systems, implementing more
    innovative assessment systems, and providing support to school
    districts to ensure that low-performing schools improve and meet the
    needs of all students.
        Getting this right is hard work, and the federal government has an
    important role to play in setting high expectations - both for systems
    and for the students those systems serve - and maintaining vigorous
    oversight and enforcement to ensure those expectations matter.
        Simply put, while the ESSA returns much decision-making to the
    state and local level, this new law is not a blank check. There are
    federal guardrails with which States and school districts must comply.
        Democrats fought for those provisions because we know from
    experience that when the federal government turns a blind eye or leaves
    states without a meaningful regulatory framework, it is the most
    vulnerable children - children of color, English learners, students
    with disabilities, and low-income children - that lose out. We've
    experienced this under both Democratic and Republican administrations.
        That's why I am glad that the Department of Education, under the
    leadership of Acting Secretary King, quickly began the process to
    faithfully implement this new law. And part of that process, as
    dictated in the Administrative Procedures Act, will be the Department
    of Education's promulgation of rules and regulations to clarify vague
    statutory terms and requirements. This congressionally-dictated
    responsibility is critical for helping states and school districts move
    forward expeditiously.
        Not a single provision in the Every Student Succeeds Act prevents
    the Department of Education from promulgating regulations, including in
    important areas like assessments, accountability, and interventions.
        Let me be clear: House Democrats would never have supported, and
    the President of the United States would have never signed, a law that
    revoked rulemaking authority or set a dangerous precedent when it comes
    to the federal government's role in protecting the civil rights of all
    students.
        Now, Acting Secretary King is not the only one with important work
    to do. As the process moves forward, state chiefs, state legislatures,
    and school district leaders must work collaboratively with all
    stakeholders to ensure that the voices of parents, teachers, students,
    and the civil rights community are heard in state capitols and school
    board meetings across the country.
        I am pleased that 370 organizations and individuals have already
    provided recommendations to the Department of Education regarding the
    regulatory process. In my own reading of the public comments, I saw
    many individuals and groups requesting additional regulatory clarity.
    This includes defining vague terms, setting parameters, and providing
    options to fulfill new legal requirements. In addition, state and local
    leaders will need to rise to the occasion and recognize their important
    responsibility to fight for strong student-focused policies.
        I look forward to hearing from Acting Secretary King about the work
    he is doing over the course of this year to faithfully implement this
    law in a way that honors Congress' intent to protect the civil rights
    of all students. Thank you.
                                     ______

        Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman. 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 14 days to allow such statements and other extraneous
    material referenced during the hearing to be submitted for the
    official hearing record.
        Normally at this time I would introduce our witness, but he
    should be familiar with everybody here, since he was here
    yesterday. I do have to ask you to stand and raise your right
    hand, please.
        Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to
    give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
    truth?
        Mr. King. I do.
        Chairman Kline. Let the record reflect Dr. King answered in
    the affirmative again. I think since it has been less than 24
    hours since you were here, I probably will not need to explain
    the lighting system again. It has not changed overnight. It is
    still pretty much like it was yesterday.
        With that understanding, sir, you are recognized.

    TESTIMONY OF JOHN B. KING, ACTING SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
                               EDUCATION

        Mr. King. Thank you very much. Chairman Kline, Ranking
    Member Scott, and members of the committee, thank you for
    inviting me to speak about how the Department of Education
    intends to implement the Every Student Succeeds Act. I commend
    Congress for passing this law with strong bipartisan support.
        The passage of this law is a major accomplishment and the
    beginning of the road as we build on efforts to expand
    educational excellence and equity in partnership with States,
    districts, communities, and educators.
        ESSA presents us with a moment of both opportunity and
    moral responsibility. The new law reauthorizes the original
    Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which was a
    civil rights law that must be viewed in the context of the
    Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
        Responsibility to ensure that implementation of the new law
    lives up to its civil rights heritage rests with leaders in
    States, districts, and with all of us.
        ESSA advances equity by upholding critical protections and
    maintaining dedicated resources for America's most
    disadvantaged students. Importantly, the law maintains
    expectations that action will be taken to improve opportunities
    for students in schools that chronically under perform, that do
    not improve low graduation rates, and that do not ensure
    progress for all student groups.
        The new law also embodies much of what the Obama
    administration has supported over the last seven years. For the
    first time, ESSA enshrines in law high-stakes State chosen
    learning standards, so that all students are prepared for
    college and careers. The law supports local innovation and
    builds on this administration's historic investments in quality
    preschool.
        ESSA also requires that information on student progress is
    shared through annual State-wide assessments, and the law
    supports State efforts to audit and streamline assessments so
    that all State and local tests are high quality and worth
    taking.
        Importantly, ESSA builds on work already underway to raise
    expectations for students and established locally tailored
    systems for school improvement in States. The law rightly
    shifts responsibility for developing strategies to support the
    highest needs students and schools to State and local decision-
    makers, and away from the one-size-fits-all mandates of No
    Child Left Behind; it creates opportunities for States to
    reclaim the goal of a rigorous, well-rounded education for
    every child.
        There also is a continued role in ESSA for the Federal
    Government to construct guardrails to protect our children's
    civil rights. I and everyone at the Department of Education
    take that responsibility very seriously.
        ESSA is a big and complex law with new pieces related to
    data reporting, accountability, support systems, programs, and
    authorities. At the Federal level, our role is to support
    States and districts, improve opportunities for students,
    investing in research, scaling what works, ensuring
    transparency, and providing guardrails to ensure educational
    equity.
        Ultimately, we all want quality implementation of the law
    that supports States, districts, and schools in helping every
    student to succeed. We all want to build on the progress
    educators and students have made in recent years; demonstrated
    through our Nation's record high of high school graduation
    rates, dropout rates at historic lows, and our largest and most
    diverse esclass graduating from college.
        We all want the story of education in America to be written
    by these and even more wins for our kids.
        ESSA implementation will require an incredible amount of
    work. The department has heard from stakeholders about where
    guidance or technical assistance is most needed. We sought
    input on areas in need of regulation, received hundreds of
    comments via our notice in the Federal Register, and held
    public meetings.
        We are still early in the process but there is urgency in
    the work to support States, districts, and educators. The
    department will engage in negotiated rulemaking on assessments
    and the law's requirement that Federal funds be used to
    supplement not supplant local investments in education.
        Sessions will begin in late March, and will be open to the
    public. As we continue to meet with stakeholders and determine
    regulations and guidance requiring updates, we look forward to
    a robust discussion of the new law.
        Education is the path to equality and opportunity that is
    at the heart of the American dream, and together we can assure
    the dream is within reach for every child.
        Thank you. I am glad to take your questions.
        [The statement of Mr. King follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Kline. Thank you, Dr. King. It is two days in a
    row you have finished in less than the allotted time. That is
    probably unheard of. We are so very glad to see that.
        I want to take a minute or two here to discuss
    congressional intent, and I got some notes in front of me
    because I want to be precise about this.
        It is not so much congressional intent as it is the
    Department's plans with respect to congressional intent that I
    want to get at. As I stated in my opening remarks, there is a
    very clear purpose behind the Every Student Succeeds Act. We
    all know we tried a top-down approach to K-12 education for
    years and it did not work, made matters worse in my opinion.
        This administration spent a lot of time and energy
    dictating policy through conditional temporary waivers. I
    cannot tell you how many times I had a discussion with
    Secretary Duncan about the nature of those.
        As it turns out, no one believed the status quo was
    working, and so Republicans and Democrats came together, House
    and Senate and administration, to pursue a fundamentally
    different approach. The basic intent behind that new approach
    is to reduce the Federal role and restore State and local
    control.
        In working with an experienced and nonpartisan legislative
    counsel's office, we made the language in the law as clear as
    possible. For example, Section 1111 of the law protects the
    right of States to set their own academic standards. However,
    because of the department's meddling in Common Core, the law
    also includes Section 8036. This section entitles State control
    over standards, reaffirms the right of States' withdrawal from
    Common Core or revise their standards as they determine
    necessary without fear of Federal interference.
        We understand implementing new law is complicated business,
    and there will be areas with questions and uncertainty, but
    there should never be any question as to what Congress intended
    when it wrote the law.
        Again, the State and Local ESSA Implementation Network
    recently wrote ``ESSA is clear, education decision-making now
    rests with States and districts and the Federal role is to
    support and inform those decisions.'' In fact, I think it is
    clear that any honest observer would reach the same conclusion.
        Yet it appears for some that may not be the case. In an
    interview with POLITICO Pro last December, then Secretary
    Duncan was asked about provisions of the law narrowing the
    Secretary's authority, and this is part of the Secretary's
    response:
        He said ``And the final thing is we have every ability to
    implement, to regulate the law. Philosophically, I agree with a
    bunch of the stuff, and candidly, our lawyers are much smarter
    than many of the folks who were working on this bill. There is
    some face-saving things you give up, some talking points that
    you give up, which we always do because we are focused on
    substance, and we have every ability to implement. That is all
    I have ever wanted.''
        Well, I find those remarks to be troubling and insulting.
    They suggest that even when it is clear to the department what
    the law says and what Congress intended, the department can do
    whatever it wants to, apparently because the department's
    lawyers are better than ours.
        Throughout the process to replace No Child Left Behind, one
    of the leading concerns I heard from colleagues and from many
    of our constituents is that this administration cannot be
    trusted to implement the law, and statements like this from
    Arne Duncan merely reinforce this legitimate concern.
        Dr. King, do you agree with Secretary Duncan's remarks?
        Mr. King. Let me first say that I am deeply committed that
    the implementation of the law respects the ability of States
    and districts to make decisions about education, within the
    parameters of protecting the civil rights of students with the
    goal of equity and excellence for all students.
        I had the opportunity throughout the last year and a half
    since I have been at the department to spend time with staff of
    the committee and of the Senate Committee and with our team at
    the department.
        There are smart lawyers all around, very strong, very
    capable staff on all sides who worked on the development of
    this law, and you can trust that we will abide by the letter of
    the law as we move forward to do regulations, provide guidance
    and technical assistance to States and districts, and our
    intent is to work together with you, and to gather input from
    educators, from parents, and from members of this committee as
    we move forward.
        Chairman Kline. Well, I certainly hope that is the case.
    You are here and you are under oath, as we talked about before,
    and you just said that you intend to follow the letter of the
    law.
        We will, of course, continue our responsibility in
    providing oversight like this hearing and others here in this
    body and in the Senate. You are right, there are good lawyers
    all around, but those good lawyers are supposed to get the
    language right to put the regulations in place that are
    consistent with the letter and intent of the law, not find ways
    around it, which was the implication of Secretary Duncan's
    remarks.
        With that, I will yield back and recognize Mr. Scott for
    his questions.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. King, shortly you
    will be nominating negotiators for the process of negotiated
    rulemaking, and in that notice, there is a constituency of
    civil rights listed, which includes students with disabilities
    and English learners.
        In areas of assessment for English language proficiency,
    alternative assessments for students with the most significant
    disabilities, do you recognize that those are actually two
    different concerns and need separate representation on the
    panel; could we commit that when you talk about civil rights
    generally, civil rights will be represented, but also those
    with disabilities, and English learners will be separately
    represented?
        Mr. King. Thanks. You know, I think one of the key things
    for success of implementation of the law will be gathering
    broad input and feedback, and we have already begun that
    process with two public hearings, gathering public comment
    through the Federal Register, and meetings with a variety of
    stakeholder groups, including civil rights groups representing
    concerns of English language learners and students with
    disabilities.
        I will not personally play a role in the selection of the
    negotiators for negotiated rulemaking, but I am confident that
    negotiators who are chosen will represent a diversity of
    interests, including educators and civil rights leaders with
    specific experience with English language learners and students
    with disabilities.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you. In response to the chairman's
    question where we have given much more power to local and State
    agencies, we tell them what needs to be done, but we do not
    tell them how to do it. The ``how to do it'' is within their
    purview.
        How do you maintain the requirements? How do you guarantee
    they will actually succeed in getting the job done if we let
    them decide how they are going to do the assessments? How can
    we guarantee the assessments will be effective in measuring
    achievement, progress, and achievement gaps?
        Mr. King. The key, I think one of the keys of the Every
    Student Succeeds Act is the commitment that States and
    districts will work towards expectations for students that will
    allow them to graduate from high school ready for college and
    career.
        As States build their assessment and accountability
    systems, they should do that work in the spirit of ensuring
    that all students graduate ready. They have to make sure that
    as they do that, they are attentive to issues of equity.
        One of the strengths of the law is preserving the
    disaggregation of data that was required by No Child Left
    Behind, so that we know where there are achievement gaps facing
    African American students, Latino students, English language
    learners, low-income students, and students with disabilities.
        And importantly the law requires not just that there be
    information about those gaps, but thanks to the leadership of
    folks on this committee, it requires that States take action
    when there are achievement gaps, when schools have chronically
    low graduation rates, and when schools are among the lowest
    performing in the State.
        We will take comment from States, districts, and other
    stakeholders to define regulations, guidance, and technical
    assistance to support States in that work, but we believe the
    law is clear that States have a responsibility to work to close
    achievement gaps.
        Mr. Scott. We do not tell them how to do it, that is local
    control. If they are not doing it, how do you guarantee they
    actually get the job done? Can you do that?
        Mr. King. Importantly, the law preserves the role of the
    Federal Government in ensuing that States fulfill their
    responsibilities under the law. Certainly, States will develop
    plans for their implementation of the Every Student Succeeds
    Act. Those plans will need to explain how they will intervene
    when schools are struggling or when subgroups are struggling.
        They will then have to produce evidence of their work to
    implement those plans, evidence of student performance, and to
    demonstrate that where progress is not made, the interventions
    are intensified. Again, their choice of the approach of
    interventions, although clearly there should be evidence-based
    interventions, and the department will take very seriously the
    responsibility of ensuring that States do what the law
    requires.
        Mr. Scott. I think it is important to note that No Child
    Left Behind had a cookie cutter response that sometimes worked
    and sometimes did not. We have let the States and local
    governments decide what needs to be done now, but we need to
    make sure that the job gets done. That is where the department
    comes in, and we are counting on you to fulfill that
    responsibility.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Thompson?
        Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Chairman. Chairman, thanks for
    this opportunity. This is the first of what I think will
    probably be many opportunities for oversight on what was a good
    bill, a good law.
        Dr. King, thank you again for coming in today. Oversight is
    so important. Just in the past couple of weeks I hosted my own
    educational forum, had a room full of educators,
    administrators, and parents, you know, getting their feedback,
    and encouraging them to give me feedback as this is being
    implemented, so that we can listen to those who this impacts
    most, which is our children. I look forward to continue to do a
    series of those around my district.
        I want to check in on testing with you. During the era of
    No Child Left Behind, the Federal Government primarily measured
    school performance on student test scores. The schools with
    students who underperformed were thrown into the onerous one-
    size-fits-all school improvement system.
        As the future of many schools began to hinge on the
    standardized test scores, pressure grew to pile on more tests
    to prepare for the big annual test with practice tests and
    taught to the test.
        Under the flawed law, high-stakes testing created an
    environment of anxiety and teaching to the test became the
    norm. This administration made this dynamic worse by using its
    temporary and conditional waiver scheme to require States to
    tie teacher evaluations to results on those same assessments.
        We know that assessments can play a positive role in
    identifying areas that need improvement, both in a school and
    in a child's personal education. However, the high-stakes
    testing created under No Child Left Behind and the department's
    waiver scheme left no room for State and local leaders to make
    those improvements and cultivate environments conducive to
    learning, which is what our schools should be all about.
        The Every Student Succeeds Act does away with the federally
    mandated high-stakes testing. Under the law, students will be
    assessed in the subjects of reading, math, and science.
    However, States, not the Federal Government, will determine how
    much those testing outcomes will weigh in a school's
    performance evaluation.
        The Every Student Succeeds Act also prohibits the
    department from imposing teacher evaluation systems on States
    and school districts.
        With these changes, the law returns responsibility for
    accountability, school improvement, and teacher evaluation back
    to where it belongs, at the State and local levels.
        Nat Malkus, an education fellow at the American Enterprise
    Institute, recently described the Every Student Succeeds Act as
    a ``Significant sign of a course correction when it comes to
    mandatory testing,'' saying these provisions can help schools
    focus on important aspects of schooling that are not reflected
    on standardized tests.
        With these comments, it is clear Congress has taken a step
    in the right direction. The ESSA also respects the right of
    States to pass laws that would allow parents to opt their
    children out of assessments. The Federal Government should not
    get in the way of States and local leaders as they carefully
    consider the concerns that parents have voiced when it comes to
    testing.
        The specific language addressing States' rights can be
    found in Section 1111 that reads ``Nothing in this paragraph
    shall be construed as preempting a State or local law regarding
    the decision of a parent to not have the parent's child
    participate in the academic assessments under this paragraph.''
        In addition, the ESSA makes an important change to the
    assessment participation rate as it pertains to schools. In the
    No Child Left Behind Act, schools that failed to assess at
    least 95 percent of its students were automatically deemed
    failing. Under the new law, however, States have the sole
    responsibility of determining how the 95 percent participation
    rate factors into a school's evaluation.
        ESSA very clearly gives power back to the States when it
    comes to holding schools accountable for assessment
    participation, and the right of parents to opt their children
    out of those assessments. These provisions will allow States
    and school districts to better identify and support
    underperforming schools and provide more transparency and
    options for parents and their students.
        Dr. King, how would you ensure--how will you ensure that
    the implementation of ESSA protects the authority of States to
    make these decisions without Federal interference?
        Mr. King. Thanks for the question. One of the things that I
    think is an important step forward of the Every Student
    Succeeds Act is as you said, the opportunity to broaden the
    definition of ``educational excellence.'' We have done the No
    Child Left Behind as a teacher, as a principal, as a leader of
    schools, and as a State chief, and understand that one of the
    weaknesses of No Child Left Behind was a narrowing of how we
    think about educational excellence.
        I think the flexibility that States have to design their
    accountability systems gives them room to ask how are students
    doing in science and social studies, are students getting
    access to art and music, are students getting access to
    advanced course work, and are schools helping students develop
    socioemotional skills?
        Are schools helping prepare students to participate in
    civic discourse? Are schools paying attention when kids are
    chronically absent and intervening to make sure that kids are
    in school, so we can ensure that they stay in school through
    high school graduation?
        I think there is tremendous opportunity here. Our role at
    the department will be to create helpful parameters and to
    provide technical assistance. I think as you will hear from
    State chiefs who are part of the oversight process, that State
    chiefs are eager to have this flexibility and to work with
    their stakeholders to broaden the definition of ``educational
    excellence.''
        Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr.
    Hinojosa?
        Mr. Hinojosa. Dr. King, thank you for joining us today to
    testify before this committee on the implementation of the
    Every Student Succeeds Act, known as ESSA. Thank you, Chairman
    Kline and Ranking Member Scott for holding this important
    hearing.
        Let me begin by saying it seems to me that this hearing is
    just another attempt to erode executive authority at the U.S.
    Department of Education. I have been here 20 years and I have
    seen that we have made some improvement. I do not want to go
    back to what it was like back during the administration of
    Lyndon Baines Johnson when he introduced legislation known as
    the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Higher
    Education Act, because it was necessary that the Federal
    Government participate in trying to make education for all
    better.
        I am concerned my colleagues want to use this hearing to
    explain why we should return to full local control. Instead, we
    must use this committee hearing as an opportunity to hear about
    the vitally important Federal role in education.
        To be clear, I strongly believe the Federal Government is
    responsible for providing educational equity and strong
    guardrails to protect the civil rights of all students.
        This includes ensuring that economically disadvantaged
    students, students of color, English language learners, migrant
    students, students with disabilities, and other special
    populations have access to a high quality education, and to
    succeed and graduate from high school ready to go to college.
        President Obama signed the Every Student Succeeds Act on
    December 10, 2015 and has provided us with a clear picture of
    your commitment to implementing that law. This includes
    promulgating the regulations that serve to interpret and
    clarify statutory requirements.
        While ESSA contains limited prohibitions on the Secretary's
    authority to regulate in particular areas, the law leaves
    substantial authority for the Department of Education to
    regulate in broad parameters and define vague statutory terms.
        Under ESSA, States and school districts are tasked with
    increased responsibility. It seems to me they will need
    additional support and oversight from the department in order
    to fulfill the requirements of this new law.
        I would like to ask you a question, Dr. King. In Texas,
    students of color already comprise the majority of the public
    school students. Can you explain the long-standing importance
    of the Federal role in protecting the right to educational
    opportunity for all students, and how does the department's
    plan balance that role with the new flexibilities afforded to
    the States by Congress under ESSA?
        Mr. King. I appreciate that question. I think the measure
    of the success of our implementation of this law will be
    whether or not it advances both equity and excellence. Too
    often, we know in our Nation's history, the interests and needs
    of low-income students have been under attended to. There are
    too many cases in our history where the interest of English
    language learners have been ignored, too many cases in our
    history where African American students and Latino students
    have not had access to the same opportunities.
        We have to view this law as an opportunity to advance
    equity, and I think State chiefs are eager to do that. I know
    Tony Evers, the president of the Board of the Chief State
    School Officers, this year has committed to make this the year
    of equity for the Council of Chief State School Officers.
        Our role at the department will be to set parameters,
    guardrails that ensure that attention is paid to the students
    who are most at risk. We know there are States that have had a
    history of underattending to English learners, for example.
        We will ensure that the regulations and guidance that we
    provide requires attention to the needs of English learners,
    and I think there are some new tools in the Every Student
    Succeeds Act that will be helpful. One of those new tools is
    the focus on schools with graduation rates below 67 percent. We
    know often those are schools serving low-income students.
        Another one of those tools is the disaggregation of data on
    English learners who are also students with disabilities, a
    population whose needs, I think, have been underattended to as
    a country.
        We see the civil rights legacy of the law as a central task
    for the department.
        Mr. Hinojosa. I am an optimist. I think we are going to go
    forward because we signed--the President signed a bill which
    was very bipartisan under the direction of Chairman Kline and
    Bobby Scott, so I think we just need to work like that as we
    try to reauthorize higher education, and we will work with you
    very closely. I yield back.
        Chairman Kline. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Guthrie, you
    are recognized.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I get to my
    question, I want to say I know Secretary Duncan, and when those
    words first came out, I thought maybe they had been taken out
    of context, and they were not, and I was real disappointed.
        I will tell you, those sitting behind Chairman Kline that I
    know and those sitting behind Ranking Member Scott, who I do
    not know as well, but I think I can say without fear of
    contradiction, are extremely smart, successful, talented, and
    they could do a lot of other things in life but they are here
    because they really believe in this process and what is moving
    forward. I am saying all along the wall, like behind Mr. Polis.
        The other thing is you wonder if he is just saying well,
    let's get something done and we can do what we want to do
    because we can figure out how to work the law to get around and
    still do what we want to do.
        I want to be clear on congressional intent. I am going to
    stick to my notes here because I want to be precise. To get to
    my question, the Every Student Succeeds Act is a positive step
    forward in K-12 education. The new law repeals burdensome
    Federal requirements and ensures decisions affecting education
    are made by State and local leaders, not Washington
    bureaucrats.
        We appreciate the work the Department has done in issuing
    initial guidance as States begin the process of transitioning
    to the new law. It has done a good job. We appreciate it.
        States and local leaders have expressed to us they are
    willing and eager to make this transition, so moving forward,
    we want to make sure they have everything they need to do so.
        As the Department of Education issues guidance, we want to
    emphasize that it should be consistent with the letter of the
    law and Congress' intent to give more control of K-12 education
    back to State and local leaders.
        Just a few weeks ago, this committee was able to hear
    testimony from Oklahoma State's superintendent, Joy Hofmeister.
    She echoed this point when she said, and I quote, ``State and
    local education agencies working closely with educators and
    administrators are in the best position to make decisions about
    the policies and practices that will benefit every child,
    especially those most in need. Striking the balance between
    guidance to the States and ensuring that States are not overly
    prescribed is what State leaders need.''
        We in Congress want to be sure the Department understands
    the intent of the law as we go through the guidance and
    regulatory process.
        As you know, the new law includes several provisions to
    guide States as they transition from No Child Left Behind to
    the Every Student Succeeds Act. When it comes to accountability
    systems, which gets to my question, States will continue
    operating under their current systems for the remainder of the
    2015 to 2016 school year, but those accountability systems will
    be suspended after that school year. Through the end of the
    2016-2017 school year, States will continue to implement the
    school interventions they had planned before the Every Student
    Succeeds Act became law.
        New accountability systems and school intervention policies
    developed and adopted by State and local leaders will go into
    effect at the beginning of the 2017-2018 school year.
        My question is with this framework in place, Dr. King, how
    will you ensure that States have the information and
    flexibility they need to adjust to the new law in the coming
    years?
        Mr. King. A guiding principle for us in this process would
    be to gather input from stakeholders and have stakeholders
    input. School districts, superintendents, principals, State
    education agencies, parents, civil rights community, and
    community leaders, have their input guide our process of
    developing regulations, guidance, and technical assistance.
        We have already started that process. The ``Dear
    Colleague'' letters, the three that we have done so far with
    States have been intended to address questions that we have
    been getting from States and to help them think through the
    transition.
        We want to continue in that way to try to be responsive to
    the needs of States and districts. We are beginning the
    negotiated rulemaking process on assessments and accountability
    plans, because those were areas that we saw in the comments we
    have received that needed additional clarity, and that is the
    approach that we will take to all the other areas.
        I am confident that we can work together with States to
    support them. I think State chiefs are eager for the
    flexibility, and many of them have already begun extensive
    stakeholder engagement as they think through their
    accountability plans and their new systems that they will
    implement under ESSA. I am confident that by the summer of
    2017, as we move into the 2017-2018 school year, States will be
    well positioned to move forward on their new plans.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. As I mentioned the previous
    Secretary, I also will say your willingness to come here 2 days
    in a row for two separate meetings to work through these issues
    shows your respect for this process, and it is much
    appreciated. I yield back my time.
        Chairman Kline. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Fudge?
        Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    again, Dr. King, for being here. Let me just be clear before we
    start. I heard reference twice to a comment by former Secretary
    Duncan, and that maybe some of my colleagues are insulted or
    aggrieved in some way about what he said. Did you write that or
    did you say that?
        Mr. King. No.
        Ms. Fudge. Okay. Just to be clear. We should not hold you
    responsible for something somebody else said.
        First question, Dr. King, an underlying focus on equity has
    remained in each reauthorization of the ESSA. As a sponsor of
    the core act, I have advocated for an accountability model that
    forces districts to review the equitable allocation of
    resources across schools. This includes human resources such as
    counselors, nurses, and other support personnel.
        What type of guidance will you be able to provide to ensure
    that as districts look at resource equity, they do so in a
    comprehensive manner?
        Mr. King. The issue of resource equity, I think, is central
    to the way States and districts can use the Every Student
    Succeeds Act to advance opportunity for students who too often
    have not had those opportunities. There are a couple of key
    potential levers. One is as States develop their accountability
    systems, they will have the opportunity to incorporate issues
    of equitable access to opportunity.
        We know, for example, there are many high schools in this
    country where you cannot take chemistry and physics. If you
    cannot take chemistry and physics, you are unlikely to be
    prepared for success in STEM careers.
        We have many high schools, sometimes high needs urban,
    sometimes high needs rural, that do not offer advanced
    placement courses or international baccalaureate courses, so
    students cannot get that head start on college level work.
        States could incorporate those elements into their
    accountability systems, and we will certainly support States in
    doing that.
        The law also requires transparent reporting on issues of
    resource equity, access to advanced course work, and we want to
    make sure that as States move forward with implementation they
    are attentive to those issues of inequitable access to
    opportunity, and as they intervene in schools that are
    underperforming, one of the things they will need to do is use
    evidence-based interventions to respond to that inequitable
    opportunity.
        Ms. Fudge. Thank you. Dr. King, we hear a lot of talk,
    especially from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle,
    about regulation of being by definition Federal overreach. It
    seems to me that promulgating regulations, issuing guidance,
    and providing ongoing technical assistance are crucial tools
    used by the department that helps States and districts
    implement the law without confusion about what it requires.
        Can you just talk a little bit about that?
        Mr. King. Yes. The regulatory process and the guidance
    process we see as an opportunity to be responsive to States,
    districts, and stakeholders. As we get questions, we try to
    respond to those.
        In the ``Dear Colleague'' letters that we have done so far,
    we have gotten questions about how States should think about
    the fact that many of the programs that were appropriated in
    the 2016 budget were done so under existing structures, not new
    law, so what does that mean for them.
        We have gotten questions around States' obligation to
    provide supplemental education services and make clear that
    they can substitute alternative interventions given the new
    flexibilities under ESSA.
        We have tried to be responsive and our intention is to
    continue to try to be responsive. Regulations often are
    critical to providing clarity on issues that are not clearly
    specified in the law, and guidance we see as an opportunity
    both to provide clarity and to offer examples of best practice.
        Ms. Fudge. It certainly is not your intent to try to run
    local schools?
        Mr. King. Absolutely not. I think we know the best ideas
    are going to come from classrooms, schools, districts, and
    States. We have to make sure that as those ideas are
    implemented it is done in a way that is attentive to issues of
    equity. I think that is our core responsibility.
        Ms. Fudge. You intend to proceed as the law has said, you
    are going to assist, you are not going to try to dictate to
    States what they should do. You are going to provide guidance,
    and that is clearly within the law.
        Mr. King. Exactly right.
        Ms. Fudge. Thank you so much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Kline. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Bryne?
        Mr. Bryne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Dr. King. You and I met
    previously. I was a former chancellor of Postsecondary
    Education for the State of Alabama. Previous to that, I was in
    the legislature and served on the Education Policy Committee,
    the Education Budget Committee, and prior to that, I spent 8
    years in the Alabama State School Board.
        I and my colleagues in a bipartisan fashion on the school
    board worked very hard to be the accountability body for the
    State of Alabama. So, I personally feel very strongly about
    that.
        Now, when No Child Left Behind came along in 2001, it tried
    to put a one-size-fits-all mentality on school systems around
    the Nation. Once again, in a bipartisan fashion, we realized
    that did not work, and so this committee and this Congress in a
    bipartisan fashion decided to move back from that.
        The law we passed last year, the Every Student Succeeds
    Act, is very clear, it is very explicit about getting away from
    the one-size-fits-all mentality.
        We have had some testimony recently before this committee,
    as was referenced earlier from the Oklahoma State
    superintendent of education that sort of gives us a good
    example of what States around the United States are intending
    to do to make sure they take their role in accountability very
    seriously.
        Far from getting away from accountability, we believe in
    the law that we actually put accountability where it would have
    the greatest impact, and that is with State and local education
    leaders.
        In some cases, those are State school board members or
    local school board members, and in some cases, it is State
    superintendents of education, local superintendents of
    education. People you know very well, and you know very well
    from your experience that these people are closer to where the
    schools are, closer to where the students are, and also have a
    pretty good handle on what needs to be done to make sure that
    education is getting through to every child. We want every
    child to be successful.
        Now, to protect this State and local authority over their
    accountability systems, the Every Student Succeeds Act included
    a number of protections to ensure the law would be implemented
    correctly.
        For example, the law asks States to evaluate schools based
    on consistent underperformance of any subgroup of students with
    consistent underperformance being ``determined by the State.''
    The law also prohibits you or any other secretary from
    regulating what ``consistently underperforming'' means.
        Now, I know you did not give the quote we heard earlier
    from your predecessor about the smart lawyers, but the concern
    is there may be some smart lawyers in the Department of
    Education that want to find a way to get around the explicit
    words in this statute. We have seen that with other departments
    of government.
        So, I want to ask you to do today in your words, not your
    predecessor's words, in your words, I want you to assure us
    that the Department of Education will respect the role of State
    and local leaders by following the clear restrictions of the
    Every Student Succeeds Act that it places on the Federal
    Government when it comes to accountability, and in particular,
    in your remarks, I want you to tell us what you will do to
    ensure that States retain the sole right explicitly given to
    them in the statute to determine the meaning of ``consistently
    underperforming.''
        Mr. King. Yes, for us, I think again, careful attention to
    the input that we get from States and districts will drive our
    work on regulations and guidance.
        Joy is a great example. I think Joy shared with the
    committee noting that Oklahoma's approach to accountability
    under the waiver had subgroups together, and she actually
    thought the Every Student Succeeds Act requirement to look at
    each individual subgroup would allow her to make an important
    step forward for equity and excellence in her State.
        Mr. Bryne. Mr. Secretary, what I want to hear is are you
    going to not let your lawyers get you to do something that
    abates the law, will you enforce this law as it is written and
    given the clear intent of the Congress?
        Mr. King. We will certainly ensure that our regulations and
    guidance are consistent with the letter of the law. We are
    committed to that. We are also committed to trying to work with
    States and districts to ensure their approach is consistent
    with the letter of the law.
        Again, I think we have an opportunity--
        Mr. Bryne. Will you respect that the States have the sole
    responsibility to determine what this phrase ``consistently
    underperforming'' means? Will you be sure that the States have
    that authority as is explicitly given to them in the statute?
        Mr. King. We are early in the process on gathering
    comments--
        Mr. Bryne. That is a yes or no question. Will you do that?
        Mr. King. Respectfully, I am not sure that it is because as
    States think about this work of implementing the Every Student
    Succeeds Act, we are getting questions from States, from
    districts, and from other stakeholders about how they move
    forward with some of the definitions in the law, and we will
    work with States on that.
        So, I am committed to working with this committee,
    committed to ensuring that our implementation is consistent
    with the letter of the law, and interested in your feedback,
    but I do not want to get ahead of the negotiating rule makers.
    I do not want to get ahead of the review of comments that we
    are getting from States and districts.
        Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr.
    Polis?
        Mr. Polis. Thank you, Mr. Acting Secretary, for being here
    today. It really was an enormous achievement for this committee
    and Congress along with you and the executive branch to
    participate in the reauthorization of ESSA last fall.
        As you know, members of this committee and our staff put
    countless hours in the creation of the Every Student Succeeds
    Act, and it is important to all our constituents that it is
    implemented effectively, which is why you are here today.
        Of course, I want to underscore the role of the department
    in the process of implementation. As legislators, we make laws,
    and the department as part of the executive branch, you have
    the responsibility to implement them.
        I want to talk briefly about accountability. ESSA repealed
    the flawed one-size-fits-all accountability system of No Child
    Left Behind, finally, and places responsibility for making
    decisions around accountability to the States.
        While we all agree that ESSA's accountability requirements
    are an improvement over NCLB, we also know that States have a
    historically checkered record of making sure that all
    vulnerable populations are served.
        As we heard recently from the State chief of schools in
    Oklahoma, some States use their waiver authority to develop
    accountability systems that hid the achievement in graduation
    rates of subgroups of students.
        It is very important in implementing the new law that the
    department ensures that the Federal guardrails in ESSA are
    meaningful and prevent those kinds of State systems from
    turning back the clock on educational opportunity for all
    students. That is referenced specifically in the statute, of
    course, around the area of opt outs, in response to Mr.
    Thompson's comments
        While a State is welcome to pass bad laws relating to opt
    outs, we have Section C.4(e) of ESSA that says States must
    assess 95 percent of students. That means ``all'' means
    ``all,'' and while it is up to States to determine the
    consequences for failing to assess students, it is the
    department that will provide oversight and enforcement to
    ensure States are assessing all students regardless of the
    State laws are on how opt outs occur.
        At the end of the day, ESSA and ESEA are civil rights'
    laws. I believe it should be implemented in a way that
    maintains that spirit.
        What steps do you plan to take to make sure that ``all''
    means ``all,'' and that States do not deliberately or
    accidentally hide achievement gaps or subgroup performance?
        Mr. King. I appreciate the question. I take that
    responsibility quite seriously to ensure that ``all'' means
    ``all'' and that this implementation of the law advances equity
    and excellence.
        I think we have an opportunity in the regulations and
    guidance that we provide to help create guardrails that will
    ensure that States use their new flexibility around
    accountability and interventions to advance equity.
        For example, as we begin the negotiated rulemaking process
    around assessments, the kinds of questions we have been getting
    have been questions around the participation of students with
    disabilities, the participation of English learners, the
    implementation of computer adaptive assessment, in a way that
    protects equity.
        So, as we move forward with that negotiated rulemaking, a
    central question will be how do we ensure that regulations that
    we do on assessments protect civil rights of students. We will
    take a similar approach to our work on the negotiated
    rulemaking for supplement not supplant, and we continue to
    review comment and feedback from stakeholders to define other
    areas where we need to move forward with regs and guidance.
        Mr. Polis. And while the consequences of meeting the
    requirements are left up to State law, do you feel that you
    have sufficient levers to ensure those consequences are
    meaningful and not meaningless?
        Mr. King. We do. I will say it will require vigilance on
    the part of the department, particularly as States implement
    their first round of interventions and identify whether or not
    those interventions are helping to achieve progress,
    particularly for at-risk subgroups. We are going to have to be
    vigilant to ensure that States continue to move forward to
    shift strategy if a strategy is not working for the highest
    needs students.
        Mr. Polis. Thanks. You know, over testing is a major issue
    we hear about from students, teachers, and school boards. I am
    very pleased that ESSA allows ACT and SAT to meet the Federal
    high school testing requirements. District and State leaders in
    Colorado also support that change.
        We have a lot of questions about implementation. What can I
    tell my constituents about how this new policy will be
    implemented?
        Mr. King. This is one of the areas also that will be
    tackled by the negotiated rulemaking process on assessments. It
    is one that we have gotten a lot of questions on, the
    nationally recognized high school assessments. There are a
    number of questions that will be posed to the negotiators, and
    we will gather--we will use the public comment we have already
    received on this subject to inform that process.
        Mr. Polis. In my last 10 seconds I just want to point out
    that there is a lot of interest in student data privacy, and
    along with Mr. Messer, we look forward to continuing to work
    with the department to ensure that as we take advantage of new
    blended learning and educational technology opportunities that
    the privacy of students is respected as well and in an
    appropriate way. I yield back.
        Chairman Kline. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Curbelo?
        Mr. Curbelo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
    Secretary, for being here with us today. As we were working
    towards this reauthorization, I collaborated with Chairman
    Kline, Chairman Rokita, and my colleague from Florida, Ms.
    Wilson, to see how we could support English language learners
    through this legislation.
        Under No Child Left Behind, there were very rigid, unfair,
    in my opinion, standards used to evaluate English language
    learners. As you know, I represent Miami, Dade County, South
    Florida, where we have a large ELL population. A lot of these
    kids were being counted out after one year. Their teachers and
    their schools were being punished.
        One of our priorities was to bring some relief not just to
    these students, we want to continue counting them without
    counting them out, but also to the teachers who spent hours and
    hours with these kids, and to the schools who dedicate so many
    resources to support them.
        Can you talk to me a little bit about how the department is
    interpreting our language with regards to English language
    learners, and if relief is coming to these State school
    districts and schools soon?
        Mr. King. This is an extremely important area. I think in
    many ways the fate of our education system is bound up with how
    we serve our highest needs students, and we have a rapidly
    growing population of English learners across the country, and
    we have to do a better job as a country ensuring that English
    learners have the opportunity to get the academic skills that
    they need and also the opportunity to get the language skills
    that they need.
        As we go forward with implementation, we are gathering
    feedback and input from the community of educators who have
    focused on English learners, as well as organizations who have
    advocated for English learner students. Their input will help
    to drive what goes into the regulations and guidance.
        As we go into the negotiated rulemaking process on
    assessments, one of the key issues will be the participation of
    English learners in the assessment system. We look forward to
    the negotiators tackling that issue.
        We think there are some great opportunities in the Every
    Student Succeeds Act. Very quickly, the opportunity to focus on
    growth. One of the weaknesses, I think, of No Child Left Behind
    was the focus exclusively on proficiency.
        We have the opportunity with ESSA implementation for States
    to look at the growth of English learners as part of their
    accountability system. We have the requirement for States to
    look at English language proficiency as part of their systems
    of accountability. We have the requirement for States to focus
    on the needs of English learners who are also students with
    disabilities, a population that has often been underattended
    to. We have the opportunity to focus attention on long-term
    ELLs, students who have been in the schools for a long time but
    still have not acquired the language skills they need.
        I think the law will help focus attention here. We already
    have begun working with States on providing technical
    assistance in this area as they think about how to integrate
    growth into their accountability systems, and certainly look
    forward to working with you on this issue.
        Mr. Curbelo. So, you can assure me today that as a result
    of our reauthorization, you foresee in the immediate future
    more flexibility, more latitude for schools, teachers, and
    districts to work with this unique population?
        Mr. King. Yes, I think States will have good flexibility
    and an opportunity to focus on the needs of English learners
    more intensively than some States have in the past.
        Mr. Curbelo. And can you tell me briefly, since we have a
    little over a minute left, regarding the implementation of the
    Direct Student Services program, which promises to expand
    school choice and again bring more flexibility and options for
    students who have the capacity to excel and to achieve more,
    but who are limited by the schools they are attending?
        Mr. King. Yes, from our perspective, we have long thought
    that school innovation and choice can be powerful levers to
    drive better opportunities for equity and excellence. We do not
    support voucher programs.
        I think that is an area in which I know there is some
    disagreement, even in this room, but we certainly will
    implement the law with respect to the D.C. program, and we will
    certainly implement the opportunities for students in charters
    that are part of the law, and the opportunity for school
    districts to design other versions of Public School Choice
    programs.
        Mr. Curbelo. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I yield back.
        Chairman Kline. The gentleman yields back. Staying with
    Florida, Ms. Wilson, you are recognized.
        Ms. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I welcome you once again,
    Dr. King. I know this is an extremely busy week for you,
    especially today. I appreciate your continued enthusiasm for
    these issues. I also look forward to your successful
    confirmation hearing later today.
        Mr. King. Thanks.
        Ms. Wilson. We know that the Federal role is crucial for
    protecting the interests of all students. Do you agree? Can you
    talk more about the long-standing importance of the Federal
    role in protecting the right to educational opportunities for
    all students?
        How might these resources in Title IV be used to support
    the 59,260 students attending dropout factory high schools in
    Florida, where one-third of students fail to graduate?
        Mr. King. When you think back to 1965 when Lyndon Johnson
    signed the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act, it
    was with the intention that education would be a driver of
    equality, of opportunity in American society. I think as we
    move forward with implementation of ESSA, it has to be done in
    the same spirit as that legacy.
        Title IV creates a number of opportunities. States and
    districts will be able to use resources there for programs that
    are targeted at dropout prevention, at issues of school
    climate, which we know are often drivers of students leaving
    school. States will be able to use Title IV to ensure they are
    integrating the arts, which can be a powerful lever for student
    engagement.
        States will be able to use those Title IV dollars to
    support initiatives to provide advanced course work. We know
    that getting students access to advanced courses in areas of
    interest can be a driver, not only of students staying in
    school and completing high school, but students going on to
    success in college and careers afterwards.
        I think there is tremendous opportunity there. One of the
    challenges will be for highest needs communities. We continue
    to see in too many places that States are underfunding highest
    needs schools. Even as the Federal resources create new
    opportunities, we do worry that we will need a strong
    partnership from States to invest in the highest needs schools.
        Ms. Wilson. Thank you. Just a follow-up to Representative
    Curbelo. We are saying that States should reduce testing, and
    in some way, I do not know what the communication is, but it is
    not the district that has the authority to reduce the testing,
    it is the State that has the authority. Am I correct?
        In Florida, the State legislature has decided against all
    that we tried to put forth for English learners, and also to
    reduce the pipeline to prison because of the extreme emphasis
    on testing. So, I call them ``testing factories'' in Florida.
        How do we go around a State to stop all of this testing,
    even though our Federal bill says they should?
        Mr. King. You know, in the fall, the President announced
    our testing action plan with a concern that a combination of
    State and district decisions, and I think there is some great
    variation across the country, had resulted in some places in
    too many assessments.
        The question is you want good information for teachers and
    parents each year about how students are progressing, but you
    do not want assessments to crowd out good instruction, as you
    know from your experiences as an educator.
        So, we recently issued guidance to States and districts on
    how they might use existing Federal dollars to audit the
    assessments they give, evaluate which ones are useful and
    creating opportunity, and which ones are unnecessary,
    redundant, or of low quality and should be replaced.
        We are seeing, I think, progress across States around this,
    a number of chiefs and our State chief school officers are
    focused on trying to both reduce the number of assessments and
    improve their quality.
        When I was State chief in New York, we had a grant program
    that focused on helping teachers and principals come together
    to look at their assessments and ask are these really the right
    ones, do we really need these, and can they be better, can we
    make them more performance-based, can we make them more
    project-based, can we make the assessment a more logical part
    of the instructional experience that students are having by
    embedding it in the instruction.
        Ms. Wilson. We have to make sure that the department plans
    to honor our congressional intent in ESSA around the 95 percent
    participation rate on assessments. I am sure we have your
    commitment to help us.
        The testing is killing them, especially in Florida. I am
    just speaking of Florida. I do not know about the other States.
        Mr. King. I think we have to get the balance right around
    assessment, and I think it is clear that in the last decade, as
    you look across the country, the balance has not always been
    right. I think we have an opportunity.
        On the President's budget, we proposed an additional $25
    million for the assessment funding that would be targeted to
    work like audits on assessments, so that States like Florida
    and others could evaluate the number of assessments they are
    giving and their quality.
        Again, we want to make sure that parents and teachers have
    good information for every child about how they are progressing
    each year, but we have to do that in a way that is balanced and
    ensures teachers and students are spending their time on
    instruction and the rich learning experiences that are going to
    produce better outcomes.
        Chairman Kline. The gentlelady's time has expired. Mr.
    Barletta?
        Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Dr.
    King, for being here today. I am looking forward to working
    with you and your department as we implement the Every Student
    Succeeds Act.
        As you know, the Every Student Succeeds Act reauthorizes
    the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program as a
    separate and directed Federal funding stream under Title IV.
    The original House version of the bill eliminated this
    important program, but as a strong supporter, I worked to
    ensure that funding was restored in the final conference report
    that was signed into law.
        The 21st Century Community Learning Centers program is
    designed to provide Federal funding for the establishment of
    community learning centers that provide academic, artistic, and
    cultural enrichment opportunities for children. Funds are
    directed to students who attend high poverty and low-performing
    schools to provide them with additional services that help both
    students and their families grow both academically and
    socially.
        Importantly to me, this program is the only Federal funding
    source for our Nation's After School programs, which students
    and working families across America rely on each and every day.
    In my district in Pennsylvania, the program provides 49 percent
    of total funding for SHINE, or Schools and Homes in Education,
    a successful after school educational program in Carbon and now
    in Luzerne Counties.
        I have worked on SHINE for many years back home with my
    friend, State Senator John Yudichak, a Democrat, because
    helping our kids to succeed should always be a bipartisan
    cause.
        Today, SHINE provides academic support for nearly 500
    students from seven school districts. After school programs
    like SHINE are known to improve academic achievement, increase
    school attendance, and engage families in education. They also
    keep our kids safe resulting in lower incidences of drug use
    and violence.
        Where I am from in Pennsylvania, this is extremely
    important. Gangs have become a big and persistent problem in
    some of our neighborhoods. As a father and a grandfather, I
    know how important these programs are to working parents who
    want to be sure their kids have a safe place to go after
    school, not to mention a place that will provide them with the
    tools they need to lead successful lives.
        SHINE and countless other after school programs have
    touched so many families, giving kids education opportunities
    that they otherwise would not have had.
        Last month, I was thrilled to hear that the SHINE program
    in Carbon and Schuylkill Counties was awarded a major Federal
    grant, meaning more students in my part of Pennsylvania will
    have the opportunity to participate in this program. Right now,
    we are currently in the process of expanding SHINE to my home
    town in Hazelton, Pennsylvania.
        Just last week, I was out at the Wilkes-Barre Area Career
    and Technical Center where I made a marshmallow pizza with kids
    in 5th through 8th grade, who are participating in the SHINE
    program. Now, these kids were not just honing their culinary
    skills, they were working on a much larger project, designing a
    restaurant using computer software and figuring out how to run
    it to make a profit.
        Given the bipartisan agreement around the 21st Century
    Community Learning Center language in the Every Student
    Succeeds Act, and the demonstrated success of programs such as
    SHINE, I strongly encourage the department to follow the letter
    of the law as we put this program into place.
        Dr. King, do you anticipate any variance from the law when
    it comes to implementation of the 21st Century Community
    Learning Center program, and can you commit that the
    administration will work to support programs such as SHINE?
        Mr. King. I certainly am a strong believer in the power of
    after school programs, having experience as a middle school
    principal, that for some kids after school is the time when
    they would be most at risk if they did not have an opportunity
    to be in a meaningful, engaging program at school or in a
    community-based organization.
        The same is true sadly for many kids for weekends, school
    vacations, summers, those are the times when kids are without
    activities and most at risk.
        The 21st Century programs are very important, I think, to
    try to meet that need, and we also have many of our Promised
    Neighborhoods' grantees engaged in after school and summer
    activities. Many of the Education Innovation and Research
    grantees are engaged in similar activities and building an
    evidence base around the kinds of program designs that serve
    students well.
        We will certainly implement consistent with the law the
    21st Century program, and think those kinds of investments in
    after school, whether it is through Promised Neighborhoods, or
    Education Innovation and Research, or 21st Century, and the
    flexibility that States and districts will have with Title IV
    dollars as well, those kinds of investments in enriching
    learning time, enrichment time, arts programs, sports programs,
    can make a huge difference in kids' lives.
        Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired. Ms.
    Bonamici?
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome back, Dr.
    King, great to have you back. I am glad my colleague, Mr.
    Barletta, mentioned the importance of extended learning
    opportunities. I wish he would have told us how the marshmallow
    pizza tasted.
        I am glad this committee is continuing its work to make
    sure that the implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act
    delivers on the goal of Congress in providing State and local
    education agencies with the flexibility and the resources that
    they need to meet those unique needs of their communities,
    while also advancing equitable opportunities and outcomes for
    America's students, especially those who have been historically
    underserved.
        It bears repeating that the Elementary and Secondary
    Education Act is really a civil rights law. Its core purpose is
    to help level the playing field and provide those resources and
    opportunities where they are lacking, and require action to
    help close the gaps. The rigidity of No Child Left Behind--I
    appreciate the chairman's comments and his list of problems
    that we are well aware--in many ways worked against this
    purpose.
        I am confident that the Every Student Succeeds Act will
    uphold the civil rights legacy of the original ESEA and be
    responsive to the needs of students in each community.
        I want to thank you, Dr. King, for mentioning the power of
    the arts to engage students. I have two nationally recognized
    STEAM schools in the district I am honored to represent. If you
    want to see engaged students, visit a STEAM school.
        I want to follow up a little bit on Representative Wilson's
    questions. One of the most frequently criticized pieces of No
    Child Left Behind that I have heard about over the years is the
    high-stakes testing. Fortunately, ESSA takes a number of steps
    to reduce the punitive measures.
        We know teachers need to assess students. We need to start
    looking at assessments as a positive tool to help inform
    instruction. The department's testing plan is aligned with the
    bipartisan legislation I sponsored to lead to the provisions in
    ESSA to reduce the duplicative and low quality assessments. I
    am pleased the President's budget prioritizes funding for
    auditing those assessment systems.
        So, can you briefly follow up a little bit on
    Representative Wilson's question as well, and talk about how
    the funding from these State assessment grants can be used to
    develop streamlined assessment systems that support teaching
    and learning?
        Mr. King. You know, we have seen good progress on this
    across States. One of the things that States have begun to do
    is to ask if students are in 8th grade and they are taking an
    advanced math class, they are taking an algebra class, do they
    really need to also take the 8th grade math exam as well as the
    algebra exam. We have worked with States so that students are
    only taking the one exam. It has been an opportunity to reduce
    assessments.
        We know that there are States that have gathered educators
    together across the State to look at both the State assessments
    and the local assessments. I think one of the challenges, and
    you know as well, is that districts responding to the narrow
    accountability system of No Child Left Behind have added many
    interim assessments over the course of the year, some of which
    may be useful to inform instruction, some of which are actually
    a redundant exercise in mimicking the State tests.
        I think we have seen States and districts take meaningful
    steps to get rid of those, in some cases, replace low-level
    tests with a research project in social studies or with a
    science experiment and a lab report on that science experiment
    in place of a bubble test.
        We are seeing progress on this. I think the additional--
        Ms. Bonamici. I want to get to another question. Thank you,
    Dr. King. Certainly, removing the high-stakes and changing that
    aspect will matter.
        During our subcommittee hearing on February 10, the
    Oklahoma State superintendent discussed her concern that their
    State's current accountability system masks the performance of
    the State's subgroup population. How does ESSA raise the floor
    for equity and address that concern?
        Mr. King. Yes. It is critical that ESSA requires that
    information be provided on the performance of all subgroups,
    and I think Joy from Oklahoma spoke to you on the ways in which
    that will enhance equity in her State, that she wants to make
    sure that schools are paying attention to each of the
    subgroups.
        That is one of the areas where some States will need to
    make adjustments to their existing accountability systems, and
    I think State chiefs are eager to do that.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. I am going to try to squeeze in
    one more question. I appreciate the department's commitment to
    hearing from stakeholders so far to date. Can you talk about
    how the department will continue to involve and be responsive
    to diverse education stakeholders?
        Mr. King. Yes. We continue to meet with stakeholders across
    the department's senior staff. I have been doing meetings
    myself with civil rights leaders across the country. We are
    going to continue to make sure we engage educators, whether we
    are doing the rulemaking process--the negotiated rulemaking
    process obviously has a particular structure, and when there is
    a rule, we will gather public comment on that.
        We see that as an ongoing conversation with stakeholders,
    and think that is one of the strengths of the Every Student
    Succeeds Act, that it really requires at every level, the
    Federal level and at the State level, meaningful engagement
    with educators, with parents, with community leaders, with
    civil rights leaders.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. My time has expired.
        Chairman Kline. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Kline. Mr. Rokita?
        Mr. Rokita. I thank the chairman. Dr. King, welcome back
    again, good to talk with you. Following up on Ms. Bonamici's
    comments, I just want to say that February 10 hearing to me and
    I think most members of the committee was one where it was
    clearly demonstrated that these local leaders, elected and not
    elected, were clearly looking for the chance to show that they
    want to do their jobs, their job being education, which across
    this Nation is primarily a State issue. You would agree with
    that?
        Mr. King. Yes.
        Mr. Rokita. As we talked about yesterday, I have the
    privilege to serve as chairman of the K-12 Subcommittee, and I
    am also vice chairman of the Budget Committee, the latter
    experience has really taught me, as we kind of alluded to
    yesterday in stark detail, the very difficult fiscal challenges
    facing our country.
        For me, the concerns I have with out-of-control spending
    and skyrocketing debt is not just about dollars and cents, it
    is about the kind of future we are leaving our children and
    grandchildren, the same children and grandchildren we are
    trying to educate and brings us both to the table here today.
        We are all rightly concerned about the quality of education
    our children receive, no doubt, but too often we neglect to
    consider the kind of country that we are leaving them, that
    they will inherit. Make no mistake, if we stay on our present
    course, no one disputes that the country they inherit will be
    mired in debt, plagued by a weak economy, and left with fewer
    opportunities to earn a lifetime of success.
        At that point, in that kind of environment, one has to
    wonder if our present day education efforts will simply appear
    moot. I think we can all agree that our children and
    grandchildren deserve better.
        So, the crisis clearly is bigger than any one agency,
    certainly bigger than yours. Whenever possible, I believe we
    need to act on our responsibility to ensure a leaner and more
    accountable Federal Government.
        That is why one of my leading priorities was, as we worked
    to replace No Child Left Behind, to help roll back Washington's
    education bureaucracy. Why is this important? Because every
    dollar spent here in Washington is money that could be spent in
    our Nation's classrooms, or paying down that deficit and debt,
    that both me, the President, and everyone else in this country
    seems to want to do.
        So, in recent decades, the Federal education bureaucracy
    certainly has grown immensely. I would argue it has gotten out
    of control. Prior to the passage of the Every Student Succeeds
    Act, the Department of Education operated more than 80 programs
    tied to the Nation's classrooms, many of which were duplicative
    and ineffective.
        The bipartisan law that we just passed and signed by the
    President eliminates dozens of unnecessary programs and
    replaces them with the Student Support and Academic Enrichment
    Grant. This grant will provide States and school districts with
    the flexibility they need to better target resources to the
    needs of students, families, and their communities.
        By eliminating these duplicative programs, we help ensure
    Federal tax dollars are used in a more efficient manner, a goal
    I am assuming we both share. That means we are not only
    reducing the role of the Federal Government in K-12 education,
    although that is a great goal in itself as I stated, but we are
    also providing State and local leaders with the tools they need
    to shape their education programs in a way they see fit, as we
    saw in the February 10 hearing.
        Every district and every State has unique needs, and the
    Federal Government is in no way capable of knowing what works
    best for everyone. In other words, the parents and leaders know
    how to help our students better than Washington.
        What I want to ask you today is about a provision in the
    law that requires the Secretary of Education to ultimately
    identify the number of full-time positions associated with
    those eliminated programs, and then reduce the department's
    staff by an equal amount.
        This is a common sense good government policy that will
    help us ensure that the dollars we spend have a direct and
    meaningful impact on a child's education, a win for both
    students and taxpayers.
        So, Dr. King, I know you have begun taking steps to
    implement these provisions, but I am concerned those steps
    might be insufficient. The department recently posted
    information on its Web site detailing the total number of full-
    time equivalent positions associated with all the programs
    funded under the ESSA as it existed under No Child Left Behind.
        However, the department has only listed specific
    information for one program of the 49 eliminated under the
    ESSA. So, I have two questions. First, when will the department
    list the number of full-time equivalent positions for all the
    impacted programs? Secondly, what will you do to ensure that
    the number of full-time equivalent positions are reduced by
    that final number within a year of ESSA's enactment as required
    by the law? Thank you.
        Mr. King. Thanks, appreciate the questions. As we look at
    the 2016 budget, many of the programs that are eliminated in
    the Every Student Succeeds Act, do have 2016 appropriations.
    So, one of the distinctions I would make is that we have
    programs that we need to run in the 2016 year but then would
    not run in 2017, and that will allow an opportunity for
    appropriate reductions at that time.
        Happy to work with you and your staff on this issue. We
    certainly want to make sure that we target our resources to the
    programs that are essential to support States and districts.
        Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired. Ms.
    Adams?
        Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Ranking
    Member Scott, and thank you, Dr. King, for joining us again,
    and good luck this afternoon in your confirmation.
        Since being signed into law in 1965, the Elementary and
    Secondary Education Act has always existed to ensure equal
    access to a quality education for some of our country's most
    vulnerable student populations. For many of these students,
    education serves as a pathway out of poverty, a means to
    achieve long-term self-sufficiency, which is why passage of the
    Every Student Succeeds Act has been so critical, especially for
    places like Mecklenburg County that I represent.
        According to a Harvard study, children in Mecklenburg had
    one of the lowest chances of experiencing upward mobility in
    adulthood, with quality of education being one of the main
    delimitating factors.
        Dr. King, one of the most important components of a quality
    education is equitable and adequate resources. It is evident
    that students who need the most are not getting the extra
    resources that they need. How do you plan to encourage States
    to look at what resources schools with disadvantaged students
    have and hold them accountable for providing resources to
    disadvantaged students in addition to improving student
    outcomes?
        Mr. King. Thanks. I appreciate the question. I think there
    are two significant opportunities. One is as States move
    accountability systems beyond just looking at English and math
    performance, they will be able to build accountability systems
    that build in questions like are students progressing in
    science or social studies, are students getting access to art
    and music. There is an opportunity for State leadership that I
    think we will see many States take advantage of.
        The second significant opportunity is the requirement in
    the law that States report on access to some of these
    opportunities, are people spending on access to advanced course
    work, and that will make transparent whether or not students
    across schools are getting the resources they need.
        It will require vigilance both at the Federal level and at
    the State level to make sure those gaps in opportunity are
    closed.
        Ms. Adams. Okay. Thank you for that. I think it goes
    without saying that one of the main reasons No Child Left
    Behind was conceived was the clear disregard for the
    achievement of student subgroups. Without relieving the No
    Child Left Behind era, how will the department ensure--
    reliving, excuse me, how will the department ensure that there
    are strong parameters in place to protect our neediest students
    and that the States are adequately serving them?
        Mr. King. We are committed that the regulations and
    guidance that we develop advance equity and excellence and
    address the needs of subgroups.
        We are still early in the process of gathering feedback and
    comment from stakeholders, but as we do that, we have heard a
    strong and clear message from the civil rights community and
    also from educational leaders, that they believe it is
    important to set guardrails at the Federal level that ensure
    that State accountability systems meaningfully intervene when
    subgroups are not performing, and that those interventions are
    intensified if progress is not made.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you. Dr. King, if some of my colleagues
    have their way and the department has an extremely limited role
    in the implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act, what
    negative outcomes may we be opening up our students to?
        Mr. King. We believe that we can within this bipartisan law
    provide the guardrails necessary to protect equity. I would say
    as we look back at the last 50 years, what we know is that at
    times, States and districts have not lived up to their
    responsibility to serve all students well.
        I mentioned yesterday visiting part of the country where a
    district had concentrated the highest needs students in a small
    number of schools. They were racially isolated,
    socioeconomically isolated, and then received less resources
    than other schools in the community.
        We have an obligation as a civil rights enforcement agency
    implementing a civil rights law to make sure States and
    districts must take responsibility for the success of all
    students.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        Chairman Kline. The gentlelady yields back. Dr. Foxx?
        Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome back, Dr. King.
    Under No Child Left Behind, the Federal Government dictated how
    States and school districts measured school performance.
    Schools identified as underperforming or failing were forced to
    adopt prescriptive and burdensome school improvement plans.
    Reforms within those schools were dictated by the Federal
    Government. If the school failed to improve over several years,
    increasingly harsh corrective action was required.
        Within the federally mandated school improvement plans,
    States and local districts lost the right to determine what was
    needed to make positive changes. Congress recognized the
    negative impact this had on students, and we worked in a
    bipartisan fashion to pass a law that would restore State and
    local control of K-12 education.
        Now, under the Every Student Succeeds Act, schools and
    school districts are able to develop school improvement plans,
    approved and monitored by their State leaders. This new
    flexibility allows State and local leaders not only to
    collaborate but also to be held accountable and take
    responsibility when it comes to improving student learning and
    achievement.
        Two weeks ago, Dr. Vick Wilson, the superintendent of
    Hartselle City Schools in Hartselle, Alabama, came before the
    committee to discuss how the new law represents ``The first
    time in 15 years the State and local education agencies can
    demonstrate what they can do to support student learning
    without Federal overreach.''
        Dr. Wilson emphasized the benefit of the new flexibility
    superintendents have under the Every Student Succeeds Act when
    he said ``Every leader needs the flexibility to deal with these
    situations that are unique to their district in a manner that
    best meets the need. ESSA is a huge step in this direction, and
    will serve leaders as they strive to lead all learners up the
    stairs of success.''
        He went on to say ``Throughout the United States, the
    Nation's 14,000 public school superintendents are charged with
    meeting and exceeding expectation of student achievement and
    learning for stakeholders at the local level. What works in
    Alabama might differ slightly from what works in Minnesota.
    ESSA provides a new opportunity for each of those leaders to
    craft and implement customized education for learners in their
    districts.''
        As you can see, State and local leaders are eager and
    excited to make the changes needed in their individual
    districts that will have a positive impact on their students.
        The Every Student Succeeds Act prohibits the Department of
    Education from prescribing school improvement strategies. The
    text of the law says ``Nothing in this act shall be construed
    to authorize or permit the Secretary as a condition of approval
    of the State plan or revisions or amendments to the State plan
    to prescribe any specific school support and improvement
    strategies or activities that State or local educational
    agencies establish and implement to intervene in support and
    improve schools and improve student outcomes.''
        That sounds very straightforward to me. In fact, it is one
    more example demonstrating Congress' clear intent to reduce the
    Federal role and restore State and local control of our
    Nation's K-12 classrooms.
        I have a very simple question for you, Dr. King. Can you
    assure us that the department will comply with this
    prohibition, and all I need is a simple yes or no.
        Mr. King. We will certainly in all of our actions be
    consistent with the letter of the law. As we are developing
    regulations and guidance, we will gather feedback and input
    from stakeholders and make sure that we use regulations and
    guidance to address areas where clarity is needed, but yes, we
    will ensure that we maintain the flexibility that school
    districts have and States have around the interventions in
    struggling schools, and we will also ensure they comply with
    the expectation of the law, that they meaningfully address
    achievement gaps.
        Ms. Foxx. So, there was a yes in there somewhere, I
    believe.
        Mr. King. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much. I yield back.
        Chairman Kline. The gentlelady yields back. Ms. Clark?
        Ms. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member
    Scott, and thank you for joining us again, Mr. Secretary, and
    best of luck this afternoon.
        Mr. King. Thank you.
        Ms. Clark. I wanted to talk briefly about the Preschool
    Development Grants, and the work that we have been able to do,
    and I think make great progress in developing the trauma-
    informed practices, which I am hopeful are going to be able to
    reduce suspension and expulsion that we are seeing in early
    education and child care.
        In Massachusetts alone in the last school year, we had over
    600 preschoolers suspended from their programs. At the same
    time, we are trying to change that narrative, and we have
    adopted the CSEFEL model, which was jointly developed by the
    Departments of Education and HHS, which I think will certainly
    help us make sure that exclusionary discipline is the last not
    a first resort for young children.
        So, as HHS starts implementing these Preschool Development
    Grants, I have two questions. One, how are you going to ensure
    that we are continuing our work and supporting our workforce
    training and development around trauma-informed education, and
    also, for States like Massachusetts that are midcourse in these
    grants, I know you are entering into a Memorandum of
    Understanding, but if you could expand on how you are going to
    do that transition.
        Mr. King. Yes. Thanks for the question. So, early learning
    is, I think, critical to addressing what we face as a country.
    We know that students who have the benefit of high quality
    early learning do better. We worry a lot about the issue of
    exclusionary discipline in early learning.
        As you know, the percentage of African American students in
    early learning and Pre-K is around 18 percent of the percentage
    of students suspended, it is in the mid-40s, so there is work
    that we need to do.
        We have been working with HHS within the context of the
    Preschool Development Grant program and the Race to the Top -
    Early Learning Challenge, from the beginning. We have done
    joint guidance with them. We have been partnering in trying to
    support States and providers in attending to issues of training
    for educators and center directors, and we will continue to
    work with them in that.
        We also have a broader administration-wide effort, You're
    My Brother's Keeper, focused on getting school districts and
    preschool providers to rethink discipline and to focus on how
    we ensure that students get the support they need to succeed in
    the classroom.
        Ms. Clark. Great. Also, in the Every Student Succeeds Act,
    there are several references to ``specialized instructional
    support personnel.'' This is a new term that refers to
    professionals such as school psychologists, social workers,
    speech-language pathologists, and school nurses who really
    provide our school-based prevention and intervention services.
        The law requires that States and local education agencies
    engage these professionals. How is the department going to help
    States and local policymakers and inform them about the role of
    these professionals and ensure that they are true collaborators
    in the implementation?
        Mr. King. Both in our efforts, the departments together,
    public comment and feedback and to meet with stakeholders, we
    are attending to address personnel that you are describing.
        I think the voice of school counselors, for example, is
    hugely important as we think about how to improve school
    safety, school climate, support students in the transition
    between high school and postsecondary opportunities.
        We will also in our guidance and in the regulations that we
    create endeavor to ensure that States are doing a good job on
    stakeholder input, including input from the diverse range of
    professionals who work in schools.
        Ms. Clark. Thank you so much. Mr. Chairman, for the first
    time ever, I yield back.
        Chairman Kline. I am so pleased. Thank you. The gentlelady
    yields back. Mr. Allen?
        Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Dr.
    King, for coming here today to discuss the implementation of
    the Every Student Succeeds Act. Both of my parents were in
    education. Obviously, we sat around the kitchen table many
    nights talking about how to make it better.
        You know, throughout our efforts to reform K-12 education
    and reducing the Federal role, restoring local control has
    remained a primary goal because it is our firm belief that
    State and local leaders know best what schools need to deliver
    a quality education to the students.
        Obviously, our teachers are very happy because of the
    ability to spend more time in the classroom and less time
    dealing with compliance issues.
        Unfortunately, for the last several decades, the Federal
    Government has assumed more and more control over K-12
    education at the expense of State and local leaders. In fact,
    the Department of Education operated more than 80 programs tied
    to the Nation's classrooms. This flood of bureaucracy largely
    dictated how States and school districts should spend limited
    resources, making it more difficult for States and schools to
    address local priorities and effectively serve their students.
        The Every Student Succeeds Act includes several provisions
    to restore flexibility to State and local leaders so they can
    identify and invest in the areas that best meet the needs of
    their students.
        As part of this act, Section 5002, the purpose of this part
    is to allow States and local education agencies the flexibility
    to target Federal funds to programs and activities that most
    effectively address the unique needs of States and localities.
        This is the flexibility that States and local leaders have
    been waiting for. We hear from teachers, superintendents, local
    leaders, and the business community in our districts all the
    time about having the flexibility to use their resources as
    they see fit to allow them to better meet unique needs of their
    students.
        That is why I was surprised and concerned to see that your
    budget proposal to change the distribution of funds at the
    local level from a formula grant program to a competitive
    grant, something not explicitly authorized in the law.
        The difference between the two is quite significant.
    Congress intended to provide all schools additional funding
    flexibility through a fair and equitable formula grant. The
    administration is proposing a scheme that will leave the
    department in charge of picking winners and losers. This is not
    at all what Congress intended.
        Could you explain why your budget proposal ignores the
    letter and intent of the provisions in the law establishing
    this important flexible grant program, and will you ensure the
    committee that the department will implement the Student
    Support and Academic Enrichment Grant as Congress authorized
    it, as well as protect the State and local funding flexibility
    provided under the law?
        Mr. King. As I mentioned earlier, I think the grant program
    has tremendous potential to be helpful to students, whether it
    is investing in the arts or school support services, creating
    safe and supportive climates for our students.
        One of the challenges is ensuring that the distribution
    results in schools having a meaningful allotment of funds
    through which they can actually produce a program that has a
    meaningful impact for our students.
        I am certainly open to working with the committee on how we
    do that, but I think whatever funding level we establish, we
    then have to ask are individual districts and schools going to
    have grants large enough to make a difference for their
    students. Often times the tension, as you know, around
    competitive grants is if you do not have enough money to have a
    meaningful impact, rather than spread the money very thinly in
    a way that does not have much impact for students, there can be
    an advantage to a competitive process.
        We are certainly open to working with you as the budget
    process moves forward.
        Mr. Allen. That is the intent we need, that we follow the
    letter of the law here as far as these grants are concerned to
    make sure it is fair and equitable to each and every State.
    Thank you for agreeing to do that.
        The other thing that we need to address as far as education
    is concerned is the motivation of the student. You know, you
    are in the business. Obviously, we are all concerned about our
    dropout rate. We have 23 seconds left. Can you give me your
    ideas on how we can motivate folks to want to stay in school
    and get a good education and then go get a good job?
        Mr. King. Yes.
        Chairman Kline. You have 12 seconds.
        Mr. King. A 12 second version of that? I will say I think
    reauthorization of the Perkins Career and Technical Education
    Act could be very helpful. There are a set of students who we
    may not be reaching with the traditional academic program
    today, but if we could integrate that traditional academic
    program with a strong career path, engagement with employers,
    and a clear path to their future, that could make a huge
    difference.
        Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr.
    Takano?
        Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary King, can
    you tell us what can the department do to ensure equitable
    access to effective teachers for the highest needs students?
        Mr. King. I think it is a hugely important issue. You know,
    one of the things that I think the Every Student Succeeds Act
    importantly maintains from No Child Left Behind is this
    commitment to equitable access to effective teaching.
        We have been working with States on educator equity plans.
    States, I think, have been very thoughtful about that work. For
    example, I believe it is Minnesota that is focused on how you
    might help paraprofessionals prepare for transitions into
    teaching, to identify paraprofessionals who are close to the
    community, may speak the language of students, and give them
    opportunities to become teachers.
        We have a State like Vermont that is focused on how you
    give students experiences in teacher prep with rural education
    so you can attract them to rural schools where there is a high
    need.
        I think we have to have targeted strategies State by State,
    and we look forward to continuing to work with States on those
    equity plans.
        Mr. Takano. Well, during the reauthorization debate, one
    thing that was agreed on was that children were being tested
    too often in schools. Teachers are spending way more time on
    testing than teaching, and students are spending more time
    taking tests than learning.
        One way that the ESSA addresses this is by including the
    innovative assessment pilot, to allow States to be able to
    develop assistance with assessments that better align with
    student-centered competency based learning models.
        How does the department plan on moving forward with the
    pilot?
        Mr. King. We are in the early stages of gathering feedback
    and input on areas where States and districts need more
    guidance, so we will gather that input and based on that
    determine the process we will follow to give guidance on the
    innovative pilot.
        I will say we have a great example in New Hampshire. New
    Hampshire has been at this for several years. They have been
    working to develop performance-based assessments that they are
    now piloting in a number of their districts, that will
    ultimately become their State-wide--they hope will become their
    State-side assessment system. They have learned a tremendous
    amount.
        I think the Council of Chief State School Officers is
    working with chiefs to make sure they learn from New Hampshire
    as we move forward.
        Mr. Takano. Wonderful. Thank you. I look forward to the
    implementation. Several States, including my own home State of
    California, are currently or will be considering legislation
    this year to disaggregate data for Asian American and Native
    Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders.
        The Education Department pledged technical assistance to
    States and districts interested in doing this, and the ESSA
    directs the Secretary to provide this technical assistance, as
    well as assistance in using such data to improve outcomes,
    academic outcomes.
        How do you, Mr. Secretary, plan on implementing this
    portion of the law in a timely manner to meet the demand from
    Asian American and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander
    communities and interests from the States?
        Mr. King. I am very interested in this question. I think
    there is some good evidence from Washington State, for example,
    as well as Hawaii, around the leverage that can come from
    disaggregation, where you can better identify subgroups that
    need attention and intervention, where there is very dramatic
    variations in performance.
        We are committed to providing that technical assistance.
    Our P-12 team is working on thinking about how we best support
    States in that work. States also have an opportunity as they
    use their flexibility to design new accountability systems to
    take that into consideration, and to go further with
    disaggregation than is the minimum requirement of the law.
        Mr. Takano. Well, how will States ensure that Asian
    American and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander communities,
    particularly those with disparities and educational outcomes
    are included and are aware of opportunities, and to provide our
    input, for example, in the creation of State plans, how will
    you ensure the States are transparent about these
    opportunities?
        Mr. King. We will certainly ensure both that we gather
    input and feedback from diverse communities. We have already
    met with some rights' organizations that are focused on the
    needs of Asian American students, so we will do that at the
    Federal level, and we will ensure in our regulations and
    guidance that States understand they have a responsibility to
    consult with diverse stakeholders.
        Mr. Takano. Wonderful. ESSA makes several references to
    ``specialized instruction support personnel.'' This is a new
    term that refers to professionals such as school psychologists,
    school social workers, speech-language pathologists, school
    nurses, et cetera.
        How will the department inform State and local policymakers
    about the important role of these professionals?
        Mr. King. We certainly will gather input from--
        Chairman Kline. I am sorry, Dr. King. The gentleman's time
    has expired. Mr. Bishop?
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr.
    Secretary, for your time today and testifying.
        I wanted to build, if I could, on my colleague from
    Georgia's question about the intent of the law. Specifically, I
    want to talk to you about a provision that is important to my
    constituents.
        My constituents frequently reach out to me and to my office
    regarding Common Core. I must say as a parent, I agree with
    their concerns. What started off as a State led effort, it
    quickly grew into an avenue for Federal overreach and into
    local classrooms, whether through conditional waivers or, of
    course, Race to the Top, many States and schools got coerced
    into adopting Common Core.
        One superintendent, Todd Gazda of Ludlow, Massachusetts,
    was cited in the New York Times describing the government's
    intrusion as ``It was almost like extortion. If you want money,
    you have to do things the way we want.''
        As a former State legislator, I can absolutely agree and I
    can relate with the sentiments of his frustration.
        Setting standards, developing curriculum, and assessing
    student achievements are State and local responsibility, not
    Federal ones, and that is why this committee was very sure to
    include several provisions which were included in the Every
    Students Succeeds Act that strictly prohibited the Federal
    Government from racing into our States and coercing our schools
    into adopting Common Core or any other standards or
    assessments.
        The law puts a firm end to the Federal Government's
    bullying States into submission when it comes to how they
    choose to teach their students. We have so many very qualified
    educators and parents who are involved and know best for their
    students in their cities, and to have to teach to a Federal
    template is counterproductive, to say the very least.
        That being said, the administration has implied that the
    Every Student Succeeds Act includes requirements for college
    and career ready standards or supports college and career
    readiness.
        Now, for many, that is code for Common Core. I just would
    like to, I guess, take this opportunity first of all to ask
    you, Dr. King, exactly how many times does the phrase ``college
    and career ready'' appear in the Every Student Succeeds Act?
        Mr. King. I could not tell you the number of times, but to
    be clear--
        Mr. Bishop. Just a second. I do not mean to interrupt but I
    want to make this point. It appears zero times. The term
    ``college and career ready'' does not appear anywhere in the
    act, yet the administration is sending a message that directly
    contradicts our intent to prohibit the Federal involvement in
    setting standards or assessments.
        On that point, do you know how many provisions in this law
    explicitly prohibit the Federal Government from dictating to
    States what kind of academic standards they can or cannot
    adopt?
        Mr. King. We are very clear and have always supported that
    standards should be State developed, State adopted, and--
        Mr. Bishop. Well, good, this is helping you then. Four
    times it specifically prohibits the Federal Government.
        There are four provisions. I would like to just cycle
    through a couple of them that very clearly state that the
    Federal Government should not be involved in the coercion of
    States in adopting specific standards.
        Section 8527 specifically says ``No funds provided to the
    department under the act may be used by the department, whether
    through grant, contract, or cooperative agreement, to endorse,
    approve, develop, require or sanction any curriculum, including
    any curriculum aligned to Common Core standards developed on a
    Common Core States standards initiative or any other academic
    standards common to a significant number of States.''
        Cycling through to Section 8544, specifically and
    unambiguously provides ``Nothing in this act shall be construed
    to prohibit a State from withdrawing from Common Core standards
    or from otherwise revising their standards.''
        You can see Congress was very clear. In fact, yesterday a
    State legislator in Michigan introduced a bill to get rid of
    Common Core in the State of Michigan in reaction to this law.
        I just hope that you will ensure this committee based on
    your initial response here that the Department of Education
    will respect the clear letter of the law and ensure that
    Federal assessment does not force, coerce, or otherwise impose
    State specific standards to set academic standards.
        Mr. King. Prior to the adoption of the Every Student
    Succeeds Act and under the Every Student Succeeds Act, we are
    committed to the principle that standards should be determined
    by States, developed by States, and the implementation of
    curriculum is a matter for State and local decision-making.
        That said, it is important that the Every Student Succeeds
    Act sets the goal that States will have high standards that
    move towards students graduating from high school ready for
    success, college, and careers, ready to take credit bearing
    course work when they get to college after completing their
    high school--
        Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired. Mrs.
    Davis?
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to see you
    again, Dr. King, and in just a little while, we will be able to
    call you ``Secretary King.'' Thank you for being here.
        I want to just very, very briefly mention, just to thank
    you, the department, I think they are following through on a
    letter that was received regarding increasing diversity among
    our schools, and we are very pleased to see movement on that,
    and to be able to talk about that issue more. I greatly
    appreciate it.
        I would just respond to my colleague as well and to others
    because I think we certainly understand the language and the
    intent of the law, but I think that the concern and the
    opportunity to offer guidance in any number of areas is very
    important.
        And particularly, we have talked about before, I know as a
    teacher and as an educator yourself, the ability of communities
    and districts across the country to share their valuable
    experiences is very, very important.
        I wonder if you could discuss briefly the role really of
    the department to engage in that discussion, to be able to
    specifically in Title II address ways that districts can
    develop systems that recruit, prepare, provide ongoing job
    embedded support for teachers, of course, but also for our
    principals.
        So, given the fact that we have to be very careful about
    the way that is done, not prescribing, but also encouraging and
    guiding, how do you see that role?
        Mr. King. So, three quick examples. I think there is an
    opportunity with the teacher equity plans that States are
    implementing to lift up good work that is happening around the
    country, States that are thinking in smart ways about how to
    bridge shortages that they are facing around teachers for
    English language learners or teachers for students with
    disabilities.
        States that are investing in teacher leadership
    opportunities, where teachers are serving as mentors or coaches
    for their colleagues, able to lead projects in their schools
    and districts.
        Two, we have an initiative called Teach to Lead, which is
    about bringing teachers together who are leading from their
    classrooms, teachers who are doing interesting innovative work
    in their schools and districts to improve parent engagement,
    improve academic outcomes for students at risk, think about how
    to use technology in smart new ways to help students.
        We are bringing those teachers together so they can share
    best practices, and I think that is an important role for the
    department.
        Mrs. Davis. Do you see that more in face-to-face
    interaction, Web sites? We know there are multiple Web sites.
    Many schools, universities, who put out Web sites regarding how
    even to have a very inclusive interactive evaluation process
    for teachers. Is that something that you--are you feeling you
    have some prohibitions against doing something like that, or is
    it pretty clear that is a guidance?
        Mr. King. You know, it is clear that is guidance and a
    resource and technical assistance that we can provide to States
    and districts. We also have technical assistance centers that
    are focused on helping States and districts with innovative
    projects to strengthen teaching, and certainly we will continue
    to do that work.
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you. I appreciate that. I think
    particularly for our principals as well, we know how important
    that is. We know there are some outstanding programs in the
    country, and people can take a look at those.
        I would hope that none of us would want you to feel sort of
    constricted in being able to share really some outstanding
    practices. One of the things that we all deal with is how do
    you scale up. We know there are great examples across the
    country, and yet, trying to bring those with a real focus in an
    area so you have kind of a critical mass, and there is no
    question whether or not these programs can be utilized
    effectively throughout the country.
        So, I hope we will be able to do that and explore that, and
    perhaps the committee as well can be able to engage in some of
    those practices that I think could be very helpful to schools.
        Mr. King. Absolutely.
        Mrs. Davis. I think the act supports that. Thank you very
    much.
        Chairman Kline. The gentlelady yields back. Ms. Stefanik?
        Ms. Stefanik. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. King, thank you
    for joining us for a second day.
        I want to build on Mr. Bishop's line of questioning. I want
    to ask you about your experience as the commissioner of
    education in our home State of New York.
        As you can imagine and I am sure you are very familiar
    with, I hear lots of concerns, questions and comments from
    students, from teachers, from parents, about the rushed and
    fundamentally flawed implementation of Common Core in New York
    State.
        To me, the feedback that I hear is that across party lines,
    there is frustration with teacher evaluations, with high-stakes
    testing, and sky high opt-out rates. In my district, for
    example, opt-out rates are some of the highest in the State
    with schools in Franklin and Hekimer Counties, reporting opt-
    out rates in the high 80s.
        So, my question for you today is what lessons did you learn
    from the fundamentally flawed implementation and the rushed
    implementation in New York State, and do you think mistakes
    were made?
        Mr. King. We have to go back to as States have moved over
    the last few years towards higher standards, what was the
    reason, what was the rationale? What we know, whether it is New
    York or all across the country, too many of the students who
    graduated from high school graduated under-prepared for what is
    next.
        As you know, on the SUNY campuses, SUNY is spending
    millions of dollars on remedial courses in the highest needs
    communities. At SUNY and CUNY, the State university system and
    the City university system, you have campuses where 80 to 90
    percent of entering students are required to take remedial
    classes, essentially high school classes, for which they and
    their families pay college prices.
        So, the challenge is how do you ensure that the system is
    pointed towards high standards that allow students to graduate
    ready for success. That is a hard process. It requires
    consistent stakeholder engagement--
        Ms. Stefanik. Do you think you adequately got feedback
    consistently from stakeholders? One of the concerns that I hear
    from teachers is they felt they were not adequately a part of
    the process and the discussion.
        Mr. King. New York, as in many States, teachers were very
    actively engaged in the process of developing standards, and
    also adjusting standards, and that process continues. I think
    we will always expect that States will consistently seek
    feedback from teachers and principals as they adjust their
    standards.
        I do think for New York and around the country, one of the
    challenges is the implementation of higher standards has come
    along side changes in teacher evaluation, and it is fair to
    say, and this is true again across the country, in many places
    those contentious discussions about teacher evaluation got
    completed with the issues around higher standards.
        I think this new law gives us an opportunity for a reset on
    those conversations around teacher evaluation in particular,
    and there is an opportunity for States to look at how do they
    ensure that their valuation systems are actually providing
    support to educators, how do we ensure that they do not feel
    like a ``gotcha system'' but rather feel like a source of
    support, and how do States ensure they are leveraging, whether
    it is Title I or Title II dollars to support teachers around
    implementing higher standards, again, with a willingness to
    adjust that effort as time goes along.
        Ms. Stefanik. Just to go back to my initial question, you
    would not have done anything differently. Do you believe there
    were any mistakes made in the flawed roll out of Common Core in
    New York State?
        Mr. King. Again, in New York, as in the rest of the
    country, I think we have learned a lot about the change process
    over the last few years. There were, I think, in many States an
    unfortunate phenomena, there was an unfortunate phenomena of
    the teacher evaluation work and work of raising standards being
    completed together, and I think that generated both while I was
    there and after I left its own set of tensions.
        Ms. Stefanik. So, as commissioner, when you served as
    commissioner of New York State, what would you have done
    differently? I consistently hear from teachers, parents, and
    students about the rushed implementation, that their viewpoints
    were not integrated.
        I know you are Acting Secretary of Education, you are
    nominated to be Secretary of Education. I think it is really
    important to see if you think if there were any mistakes made
    when you served as commissioner of New York State.
        Mr. King. I think it is more a question of what we learned
    over time. Again, not just in New York but across the country.
    I think part of what we are seeing with the testing action
    plan, we did something similar in New York, grants to school
    districts, to bring together educators to look at the
    assessments they were given, evaluate which ones are useful and
    which are not, and which could be reduced.
        That was a good step. I think us in New York and folks
    across the country wish we had done that sooner. I think the
    conversation that will be unleashed by the Every Student
    Succeeds Act about how we broaden the definition of
    ``educational excellence,'' I think, creates an opportunity.
        I do not think anyone intended for science and social
    studies or art and music to get less attention when No Child
    Left Behind was adopted, but the reality is in many places,
    they did. We now have an opportunity with the new law to relook
    at that and for States to think more broadly about how they
    define ``educational excellence.''
        Chairman Kline. The gentlelady's time has expired, I am
    sorry.
        Ms. Stefanik. Thank you.
        Chairman Kline. Mr. DeSaulnier?
        Mr. Desaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
    you, Doctor, from what I have been able to see personally, and
    watching on television, and hearing your testimony in the last
    few days, that it demonstrates at least to me and I think to
    all of us your commitment and your passion for the career you
    have been embarked on, and your future position, hopefully.
        I wanted to ask you questions about after school programs
    and intersession programs, and this has already been brought up
    in today's hearing, but there has been bipartisan effort on
    some of these issues.
        And when we look back--I am old enough to remember when we
    first started talking about this, and I think if memory serves
    me, Congress in the 1960s had the Jenkins Report, who talked
    about the importance of not just socioeconomic on the
    achievement gap or what had become the achievement gap, but
    also how we address that.
        First of all, thank you for your support for community
    learning centers, that you kept in the budget at $1 billion,
    and the success of those programs.
        Secondly, probably not so positively, but I would like you
    to talk about this, about where this may engage. Mr. Thompson
    and I worked on a bipartisan effort for family engagement
    centers that you did not put in the budget.
        Clearly, these are the kind of things that we now know
    looking back that if we had fully funded them and kept them
    going, the achievement gap might not be what it is today.
        So, could you speak about family engagement, particularly
    in disadvantaged communities, where there is such a challenge
    and you have put so much of your career into, but how do you
    foresee not only in this budget but in coming budgets, but if
    we were to fully fund these, and I believe the achievement gap
    would start to be significantly reduced.
        Mr. King. Yes. You know, one of the challenges as we
    developed this budget was trying to figure out how we align the
    President's priorities with constraints created by the caps in
    the budget agreement.
        I will say I think family engagement obviously is a hugely
    important issue in schools, it is critically important that
    educators are well prepared around that. The budget includes
    funding for teacher and principal preparation, innovation.
        I think one of the places where we can stand some
    innovation and teacher and principal preparation is around
    making sure folks are well prepared to engage with families as
    partners when they enter schools.
        There is an opportunity with Title IV dollars, you know,
    the existing programs that were in the 2016 budget for Title IV
    were at about $278 million. We added to that $222 million in
    the President's budget to get to $500 million. Title IV
    resources could be used for elements of family engagement,
    partnerships with families that would create safe and
    supportive school climates and strengthening the breadth of
    kids' academic experience.
        I think there are opportunities within the President's
    budget to direct resources towards family engagement, but
    clearly it is an area that as a country we need to do more.
        Mr. Desaulnier. So, if you were to project out over a
    period of time knowing in California and also having spent some
    time in your State, in Harlem, with a study from Columbia
    University, but in areas in Los Angeles and the Bay Area, where
    I am from, including my district, when these programs are up
    and are sustainable, there is a real sense, as you know, of
    empowerment for the whole community, and in communities that
    often times do not feel that ever in terms of government
    agencies.
        So, when you do not fund them or when you fund them and
    then take them away or marginalize them, the effect not just on
    the child but on the community and through multiple generations
    just keeps reinforcing, I think, that there are answers, but we
    sort of were loosey with the ball. We keep saying this time we
    are going to be there but then we go away.
        So, I appreciate your comments, but say you were to stay in
    this job for longer than just a year, how would you project out
    those kinds of investments, and how can we make them
    sustainable, and still hold them to account?
        Mr. King. I think we do need to build on investments in
    family engagement. It may be there are smarter ways to use
    existing resources, Title I is another place where districts
    could be investing resources in family partnerships.
        I also think we are seeing with our Promise Neighborhoods
    initiative the leverage that comes when you have schools
    partnering with community-based organizations, so that you
    broaden the outreach to parents and can engage parents on
    multiple levels, both as the first teacher of their children,
    but then also providing parents with opportunities to get a GED
    if they need that, opportunities to get employment training,
    opportunities to get language skills.
        We are seeing some very strong examples in Promise
    Neighborhoods and in our innovation, education and innovation
    and research programs.
        So, I think this is a place where there is good momentum,
    and we have to continue to build on that momentum.
        Mr. Desaulnier. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Kline. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Carter, you
    are recognized.
        Mr. Carter. Thank you. Dr. King, thank you for being here
    this week. We appreciate the time that you have committed to us
    this week very much.
        You know, I am a freshman member of the House, and quite
    often, I am asked what have you done since you have been there.
    I point to this, and I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, because
    this is one of the things that I am very proud of that we have
    done, this devolution of power from the Federal level to the
    State level. It is very important.
        You are going to play an important role. Your department is
    going to play an important role in implementing this, and
    delivering on the promises that we have made to reduce the
    Federal role, to restore State and local controls, and most
    importantly, to empower parents to hold schools accountable.
        Over the last seven years, I have witnessed in the State of
    Georgia the Federal Government using rules and regulations and
    guidance to impose the one-size-fits-all policies and the
    micromanaged schools, hampering the ability of parents and
    teachers and State and local officials to address the unique
    needs of their students, and that is very important to me.
        I believe education at the local level is the best. I am
    very adamantly in favor of this, and I want to make sure it is
    implemented like we intended for it to be.
        The reforms that we have in Every Student Succeeds gets the
    Washington bureaucrats out of it, and that is what we want, and
    that is very important, very important to me, very important to
    my constituents.
        We can finally stop Common Core. I can tell you in the 1st
    District of Georgia, this is what people would want, and we
    want to make sure this gets done.
        I want to talk specifically about some provisions in the
    law that protect State and local early childhood efforts from
    Federal interference. This is very important. The law is very
    clear that early child care and education programs are a State
    and local responsibility.
        In fact, I read from Section 8549(b) of the law, and you
    can see it here, ``It is the sense of Congress that the State
    retains the right to make decisions free from Federal intrusion
    concerning its system of early learning and child care, and
    whether or not to use funding under this act to offer early
    childhood education programs.''
        It is very clear on what we meant for that. It broadly
    outlines how States can better serve children and families, and
    it highlights the efforts to provide parents--the most
    important role that they play, they are the ones who are really
    the key here--provides them with a variety of programs and
    services, and protects the rights of local providers to design
    the programs that best meet the needs of the children that they
    serve.
        When it comes to implementing the Preschool Development
    Grant program, the Every Student Succeeds Act deliberately
    clarifies, it says ``Nothing in this section shall be construed
    to authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services or the
    Secretary of Education to establish any criterion for grants
    made under this section.''
        It is very clear on what we are stating there. The law
    always specifies that it is up to the States, not the Federal
    Government, to develop and implement learning curriculum,
    standards, assessments, as well as specific measures or
    indicators of quality in the systems that states use to assess
    the quality of the programs and the providers.
        You want to know why? The reason is because it is parents
    and teachers who know what is best for their children, not the
    Federal Government. This is something I believe very strongly
    in.
        The States are now responsible. They are responsible now
    for defining terms such as ``high quality'' as it relates to
    early childhood programs, determining teacher qualifications
    and evaluations, specifying class sizes, setting expectations
    for scope and duration of programs, not the Department of
    Education.
        So, as the First Five Years Fund, in support of these
    provisions through the Every Student Succeeds Act, State
    leadership will have the opportunity to efficiently coordinate
    their early childhood systems, developing a plan to improve and
    expand upon what they are already doing.
        So, Dr. King, my question to you is how will you work with
    the Department of Health and Human Services to ensure that
    these provisions are honored so that the States can provide
    children and families quality early learning opportunities
    without Federal interference?
        Mr. King. We certainly, as we move forward with
    implementation of the Preschool Development Grants and the
    successor program in the Every Student Succeeds Act, we will
    continue to work closely with Health and Human Services to
    support States and districts and programs that they have
    designed, that reflect their work on ensuring students have
    access to high quality opportunities.
        I think as a country, as we think about the direction of
    early childhood education, we have to be focused on the issue
    of quality, are the teachers who are in the early learning
    context well prepared for the diverse students with which they
    are engaging? Are we doing everything we can to ensure
    inclusive environments?
        As you know, we have programs for preschool children under
    IDEA, and to the extent that we can ensure those students have
    access to inclusion in the general education classroom, and we
    should--
        Chairman Kline. Dr. King, I am sorry, but you have a hard
    stop time and Mr. Carter's time has expired, and we are going
    to try to move expeditiously through the next three members,
    starting with Dr. Roe.
        Mr. Roe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and sorry, Dr. King, I
    missed the first part. I had to be at a Veterans Affairs
    markup.
        There are many issues Congress wanted to address in
    reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
    perhaps the most significant issue was the Federal Government's
    top-down approach to holding schools accountable.
        The Every Student Succeeds Act gives the power back to the
    States to establish accountability systems that work best for
    their schools. The law outlines several broad parameters for
    State leaders to look at as they develop State-based
    accountability systems.
        However, States now have the flexibility to weigh each
    expectation as they see fit. Within these State-based
    accountability systems, States will evaluate their public
    schools based on proficiency in reading and math, English
    proficiency for English learners, and graduation rates for high
    school students, a valid and reliable State-wide indicator for
    elementary and middle schools, and at least one other indicator
    of school quality or student success.
        The Every Student Succeeds Act, and this is a critical
    difference from No Child Left Behind, also allows State leaders
    to establish their State's long-term goals as well as the
    measurements of interim progress they will use to evaluate
    progress toward those goals.
        As a result, the law successfully returns the
    responsibility of accountability back to State and local
    leaders who know better than anyone what their students need to
    succeed in school.
        As Education Week noted, ``The Every Student Succeeds Act
    is a U-turn from the current much maligned version of the ESEA
    law, No Child Left Behind Act, States' wide discretion in
    setting goals, figuring out just what to hold the schools and
    districts accountable for and deciding how to intervene in low-
    performing schools.''
        Key education stakeholders have also praised the new law.
    The chief counsel of a State school officer said, and I quote,
    ``Through the Every Student Succeeds Act, States have the
    flexibility they need to improve education outcomes for all
    kids while at the same time maintaining strong
    accountability.''
        The Every Student Succeeds Act makes clear that the
    Department is prohibited from prescribing the indicators States
    use in their accountability systems beyond what is explicitly
    outlined in the statute.
        Dr. King, my question is what will you do to ensure your
    implementation of the law protects explicit authority of States
    to determine the weight and mix of indicators, both academic
    and non-academic indicators, that are used in their
    accountability systems?
        Mr. King. I appreciate the question. You know, as we move
    forward with implementation, I think we have a great
    opportunity for States to leverage their flexibility with
    respect to accountability systems and interventions.
        On the accountability side, I think we have an opportunity
    where States can broaden how they define an excellent education
    to make their definition more well-rounded than the narrow
    focus on English and math assessments that we saw during the No
    Child Left Behind era.
        An opportunity for States to look at students' progress. I
    mentioned this earlier, in science and social studies, arts,
    music, socioemotional learning.
        On the issue of interventions, there is an opportunity for
    States and districts to develop much more targeted
    interventions, freedom from the one-size-fits-all approach of
    No Child Left Behind.
        Where a school identifies, for example, that their English
    language learners are struggling, they should be able to tailor
    a response that is around teacher professional development and
    teacher support to work effectively with English learners,
    rather than having to use a cookie cutter solution that is
    provided external to the districts.
        I think there is tremendous opportunity. As we develop
    guidance and regulations, we will take input very seriously
    from all stakeholders, including the counsel of chief State
    School officers, superintendents, teachers, principals, civil
    rights leaders, community leaders, and ensure State and local
    flexibility within the guardrails of protecting students' civil
    rights.
        Mr. Roe. I appreciate that response. I do want to work with
    you on yesterday's question on the higher ed part of reducing
    the incredible amount of rules and regulations, and I yield
    back.
        Chairman Kline. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Grothman?
        Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Thanks again for joining us. I am
    going to talk to you a little bit about teacher evaluations,
    something I have been interested in for a long time, just
    wrapped up a book last night, ``The Smartest Kids in the
    World,'' and I would recommend it to you. You can see how
    different countries around the world deal with getting the best
    teachers.
        Nevertheless, I think one of the goals of the Every Student
    Succeeds Act is to remove or to clarify, as we have up here on
    the screen, it says ``Nothing in this act shall be construed to
    authorize or permit the Secretary to prescribe any aspect or
    parameter of a teacher, principal, or other school leader in
    the evaluation system within a State or local educational
    agency.''
        You know, I think it is a great thing that we have 50
    different States and a lot of times in those States it varies
    from district to district as to how they evaluate their
    teachers.
        In the past, prior to passing this bill, the Department of
    Education forced States into adopting prescriptive teacher
    evaluation policies in exchange for additional Federal funding
    or much needed relief from No Child Left Behind, be put into a
    straightjacket and have to do an evaluation system that the
    district did not want, and you also had the situation of all
    sorts of different evaluation systems and the ability to pick
    the best around the country for every individual district.
        What I would like to get from you today is just to clarify,
    and you see what the statute says, I want you to assure the
    committee that the department intends to follow the law, and we
    are not going to have any more actions in which you require or
    coerce States or school districts to adopt a certain teacher
    evaluation system or even specific elements within a teacher
    evaluation system, can we be confident now that those days are
    gone?
        Mr. King. Yes. We are very clear that the law puts teacher
    evaluation in the hands of States and districts, and I think we
    have an opportunity with the new law for a reset in the
    conversation about teacher evaluation.
        I do think we have technology over the last decade where
    teachers in many places have felt attacked or blamed by the
    discussions around evaluation, and now States and districts can
    use that flexibility in smart ways.
        It is important you referenced Amanda Ripley's book. I
    think there are very interesting opportunities for States to
    leverage their flexibility now and to focus on teacher
    leadership in the way that some of our international
    competitors do, to focus on strengthening teacher preparation
    in some of the ways our international competitors do, to create
    mentoring and induction support in some of the ways our
    international competitors do.
        So, I think the new law gives us an opportunity for States
    to reset their approach on issues of teacher quality, certainly
    it is important that the law maintains the focus on equitable
    access to effective teaching, and States are doing good work on
    their equity plans that we will continue to support.
        Mr. Grothman. Just to understand, you are not too much in
    the conversation?
        Mr. King. Right. I understand our role is to try to support
    States, certainly the Teacher and School Leader Incentive Fund,
    for example, is an opportunity to support districts in their
    work in lifting up teacher leadership and support. We are clear
    that the law makes teacher evaluation a project for States and
    districts.
        Mr. Grothman. Thanks very much. I yield the remainder of my
    time.
        Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman, and he yields back.
    Mr. Messer?
        Mr. Messer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Dr. King. I
    admire your stamina. I know you have had a lot going on in the
    last couple of days, and I think this may be the caboose of
    your questioning, so thank you for your patience, and thank you
    for the gracious way you have conducted yourself.
        Yesterday, we had an opportunity to talk a little bit about
    some of the challenges with Indiana's charter school funding.
    Today, I want to talk to you a little more about the broader
    opportunities that come with educational choice for kids in
    America.
        We have all either seen or heard accounts of how empowering
    parents gives better opportunities for not only kids but the
    communities that they live in as well.
        Just a few weeks ago, we had a remarkable testimony from a
    young woman, Denisha Merriweather, a graduate student of the
    University of South Florida. She came to the committee and gave
    a personal account of how school choice and the opportunities
    associated with that have changed her life.
        She began by painting a picture of what school was like for
    her before she had a change in educational opportunity, and I
    will quote from her, she said ``My grades were bad and I did
    not understand most of my school work. I got picked on by other
    kids because I was doing so poorly in school, and I kept
    getting into fights, I failed third grade, not once but twice.
        All too well, it seemed my future was mapped out for me. I
    would follow in the footsteps of my mother, uncle, and brother,
    who all dropped out of school. I was unmotivated, and learning
    became a nightmare, a punishment for being a child.''
        Ms. Merriweather went on to talk about how local school
    choice options allowed her to transfer into a better school,
    and as a result of that, her life took a dramatic turn. Not
    only did she graduate from high school, she went on to college,
    and now she is pursuing a Master's degree.
        These are stories we have all heard before. I have visited
    the BASIS School in Washington, D.C. where kids from every zip
    code in Washington, D.C. are obtaining STEM level training and
    having incredible success in their life. When I met with those
    young people, the one question they asked me is why does not
    every kid in America have the same kinds of opportunities that
    I have.
        Today, over 44 States provide school choice options, and as
    you know, the Every Student Succeeds Act includes provisions
    that support and encourage educational choice and opportunity
    for kids.
        That is really my question for you, Dr. King, how will the
    department ensure that these provisions, access to charter
    schools, magnet schools, and direct student services--how will
    you make sure that the intent of Congress in that act is
    implemented, so that we make sure that kids' futures are not
    determined by their zip codes, and every kid has an opportunity
    to succeed?
        Mr. King. We have several great opportunities. I think the
    charter school program and the CMO program are both helping to
    drive the creation of high performing charters, and at the same
    time, improve the quality of charter authorizing, because as
    you know, the promise of school choice is undermined when we
    have charters that are chronically underperforming and
    authorizers fail to act.
        Mr. Messer. The same with public schools, we have to hold
    public schools accountable as well.
        Mr. King. That is exactly right. I think there is
    opportunity with those two charter programs. There is
    opportunity with the magnet program. The President's budget
    proposes an increase in the magnet program.
        I think it is an opportunity for magnet programs to learn
    from evidence about the kinds of magnets that are driving
    better outcomes and good examples nationally like the work that
    is happening in Hartford, Connecticut, for example, creating
    magnets that actually draw tremendous student interest from
    across district lines with quality arts programs, for example,
    that are appealing or our STEM programs that are appealing to
    parents.
        The President has in the budget a proposal called
    ``Stronger Together,'' which I mentioned yesterday, which
    focuses on socioeconomic integration of schools, again creating
    opportunities for students to go to schools that are created
    across district lines or within a district, to intentionally
    serve a diverse population and offer opportunities.
        Mr. Messer. Thank you. I know we are at the hard stop. I
    would just say this, I appreciate your testimony. Frankly,
    while I would like to see us do much more, I appreciate your
    predecessor's commitment to making sure that at least in the
    space of charter schools that we were partners in making sure
    kids have better opportunities. I hope that work will continue
    with you.
        Mr. King. Absolutely.
        Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired. All
    questions have been asked and answered, I believe. Let me turn
    to Mr. Scott for his closing remarks.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Dr. King for
    testifying today, and I want to thank you for holding the
    hearing.
        The committee is continuing to fulfill its responsibility
    to perform oversight on this new law. This ongoing process will
    expose problems, either overreach by the department or failure
    of the department to enforce the provisions of the law.
        Let's be clear that States and localities were given the
    authority and flexibility but they were not given a waiver.
    They are required by law to assess the performance and
    graduation rates of students, and to take effective action to
    narrow any achievement gaps. They have all kinds of flexibility
    on how to do it, but the law requires them to actually do it.
        Let's not forget the intent of the Elementary and Secondary
    Education Act when it was passed in 1965. It was to fulfill the
    finding in Brown v. Board of Education that found it is
    doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed
    in life if denied the opportunity of an education, and such an
    opportunity is a right which must be made available to all on
    equal terms.
        The ESEA addressed that by providing funding for education
    for lower income children with particular focus on areas of
    high concentration of poverty, and later under No Child Left
    Behind, we added the responsibility that action had to be taken
    to address achievement gaps.
        The Every Student Succeeds Act improves on No Child Left
    Behind and builds on the progress we have made since Brown in
    1954 and ESEA in 1965.
        We look forward to working with Dr. King and the Department
    of Education to ensure that the opportunity of an education is
    in fact made available to all of our Nation's children on equal
    terms, and I yield back.
        Chairman Kline. The gentleman yields back. I thank the
    gentleman. I want to make just a couple of really quick points.
    I know you have to leave, and we are very, very grateful for
    the time that you have spent with us.
        At several points in the hearing today, some of my
    colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle, and I think
    even perhaps you, Dr. King, have argued that nothing in ESSA
    prevents the Secretary from implementing the law.
        Let me assure you that on this side of the aisle, we
    understand that is part of your job, to implement this law, but
    the language included in the law now includes explicit
    instructions about that implementation. These instructions
    include unprecedented restrictions on the Secretary's
    authority. That was done on purpose.
        In answering Mr. Byrne's question earlier, Dr. King, you
    stated that you thought the provision in Section 1111(c) was
    unclear, but the plain reading of the text says ``Consistently
    underperforming as determined by the States,'' not as
    determined by the U.S. Department of Education or determined by
    the Secretary of Education, the Acting Secretary of Education,
    as determined by the States.
        So, the question is not does the Secretary have authority
    to implement the law. Of course, he does, but that
    implementation must be consistent with the law, which you have
    said repeatedly that you understand and intend to do that.
        You cannot regulate contrary to the law, and you cannot
    rewrite the law, the regulation. You can implement the law as
    written.
        We wish you good luck in doing that, rest assured we will
    be watching every minute as this goes. We would like to work
    with you and your staff, and have every intention of doing
    that, and speaking of good luck, good luck this afternoon.
        Mr. King. Thank you.
        Chairman Kline. There being no further business, the
    committee stands adjourned.
        [Additional submissions by Mr. Scott follow:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Whereupon, at 12:33 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                             [