[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, [email protected].
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.]
[