    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                         ESSA IMPLEMENTATION: EXPLORING
                         STATE AND LOCAL REFORM EFFORTS

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

                                    6HEARING

                                   before the

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

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                 HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JULY 18, 2017

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 115-24

                                   __________

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

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Available via the World Wide Web: www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
               committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education
                                       or
                Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov

                                      ______

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    26-227 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2018
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
      Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
             DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
                              Washington, DC 20402-0001

                    COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE

                   VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman

    Joe Wilson, South Carolina           Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
    Duncan Hunter, California                Virginia
    David P. Roe, Tennessee              Ranking Member
    Glenn ``GT'' Thompson, Pennsylvania  Susan A. Davis, California
    Tim Walberg, Michigan                Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
    Brett Guthrie, Kentucky              Joe Courtney, Connecticut
    Todd Rokita, Indiana                 Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
    Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania           Jared Polis, Colorado
    Luke Messer, Indiana                 Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
    Bradley Byrne, Alabama                 Northern Mariana Islands
    David Brat, Virginia                 Frederica S. Wilson, Florida
    Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon
    Elise Stefanik, New York             Mark Takano, California
    Rick W. Allen, Georgia               Alma S. Adams, North Carolina
    Jason Lewis, Minnesota               Mark DeSaulnier, California
    Francis Rooney, Florida              Donald Norcross, New Jersey
    Paul Mitchell, Michigan              Lisa Blunt Rochester, Delaware
    Tom Garrett, Jr., Virginia           Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
    Lloyd K. Smucker, Pennsylvania       Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
    A. Drew Ferguson, IV, Georgia        Adriano Espaillat, New York
    Ron Estes, Kansas
    Karen Handel, Georgia

                          Brandon Renz, Staff Director
                     Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on July 18, 2017....................................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Foxx, Hon. Virginia, Chairwoman, Committee on Education and
          the Workforce..............................................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     2
        Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'', Ranking Member, Committee on
          Education and the Workforce................................     3
            Prepared statement of....................................     6

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Lovell, Mr. Phillip, Vice President of Policy Development and
          Government Relations, Alliance for Excellent Education.....    23
            Prepared statement of....................................    25
        Nowicki, Ms. Jacqueline, Director, K12 Education, U.S.
          Government Accountability Office...........................     8
            Prepared statement of....................................    10
        Pletnick, Ms. Gail, Superintendent, Dysart Unified School
          District...................................................    18
            Prepared statement of....................................    20
        Wright, Ms. Carey, State Superintendent, Mississippi
          Department of Education....................................    48
            Prepared statement of....................................    50

    Additional Submissions:
        Mr. Lovell:
            School Interventions That Work: Targeted Support for Law-
              Performing Students....................................    90
        Mr. Scott:
            Prepared statement from The Advocacy Institute...........   108
            Prepared statement from The Council of Parent Attorneys
              and Advocates, Inc. (COPAA)............................   109
            Prepared statement from LDF..............................   112
            Prepared statement from National Down Syndrome...........   115

                         ESSA IMPLEMENTATION: EXPLORING
                        STATE AND LOCAL REFORM EFFORTS

                                  ----------

                             Tuesday, July 18, 2017

                            House of Representatives

                    Committee on Education and the Workforce

                                Washington, D.C.

                                  ----------

        The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in Room
    2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Virginia Foxx
    [chairwoman of the committee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Foxx, Wilson of South Carolina,
    Walberg, Guthrie, Rokita, Barletta, Messer, Brat, Grothman,
    Stefanik, Allen, Lewis, Mitchell, Garrett, Smucker, Estes,
    Handel, Scott, Davis, Grijalva, Courtney, Fudge, Polis, Sablan,
    Bonamici, Takano, Adams, DeSaulnier, Norcross, Blunt Rochester,
    Krishnamoorthi, Shea-Porter, and Espaillat.
        Staff Present: Michael Comer, Press Secretary; Amy Raaf
    Jones, Director of Education and Human Resources Policy; Jonas
    Linde, Professional Staff Member; Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk;
    Kelley McNabb, Communications Director; Jake Middlebrooks,
    Legislative Assistant; James Mullen, Director of Information
    Technology; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Mandy Schaumburg,
    Education Deputy Director and Senior Counsel; Brad Thomas,
    Senior Education Policy Advisor; Michael Woeste, Press
    Secretary; Tylease Alli, Minority Clerk/Intern and Fellow
    Coordinator; Austin Barbera, Minority Press Assistant; Jacque
    Chevalier, Minority Education Policy Director; Denise Forte,
    Minority Staff Director; Mishawn Freeman, Minority Staff
    Assistant; Doug Hodum, Minority Education Policy Fellow;
    Kimberly Knackstedt, Minority Disability Policy Advisor;
    Veronique Pluviose, Minority General Counsel; andAneesh Sahni,
    Minority Education Policy Fellow.
        Chairwoman Foxx. The Committee on Education and the
    Workforce will come to order. Good morning and welcome to
    today's full committee hearing. I thank our panel of witnesses
    and our committee members for joining today's discussion on the
    implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act, ESSA.
        ESSA can be considered a milestone for K-12 policy because
    it was a monumental shift in the role of States and school
    districts would have in the future of education. ESSA sought to
    achieve two specific goals for K-12 education: autonomy and
    accountability. States and school districts were given new
    independence when creating a K-12 education program that works
    best for their own students, ending a Washington knows best
    approach to education.
        Additionally, ESSA specifically prohibited the federal
    government from influencing States' adoption of particular
    standards. It also repealed Federal mandates for teacher
    performance and protected a State's right to opt out of Federal
    education programs. Part of ESSA's goal for State and school
    district autonomy was to force Washington to remain at arm's
    length from States and school districts when it comes to
    education. And rest assured that this committee will be
    watching to ensure that Washington keeps its distance.
        While States and school districts were given more autonomy
    in ESSA, the law maintains provisions ensuring parents have
    transparent information about school performance and States and
    districts can hold schools accountable for delivering a high-
    quality education to all students. ESSA also included
    unprecedented restrictions on the Department of Education's
    authority to take back the State and local flexibility
    guaranteed by the law.
        ESSA has stripped away powers of the Department of
    Education, such as the ability of the Secretary of Education to
    legislate through executive fiat or the ability of the
    Department's bureaucrats to substitute their judgment for
    States'. History made it clear that a top-down approach to K-12
    education did not serve students, parents, teachers, or the
    States well, and ESSA directly addressed the shortcomings.
        Given the monumental shift in education policy represented
    by ESSA, it is important that we hear how implementation is
    progressing. We know the law will not fully take effect into
    the coming school year and we will need time to assess its
    impact on schools and students. However, I look forward to
    hearing from today's witnesses about the progress State school
    districts and the Department of Education are making.
        This committee has been keeping a close eye on this
    implementation process. Last year we held four hearings on
    implementation of ESSA. Today we will continue our discussion
    on ESSA's implementation.
        ESSA was truly a change for K-12 education and I do believe
    this bipartisan law delivers the proper balance of autonomy and
    accountability to parents and taxpayers while ensuring a
    limited Federal role. This law has the ability to empower State
    and local leaders to change K-12 education for the better and
    that is why it is of utmost importance to this committee. I
    look forward to hearing from our witnesses and members during
    today's hearing.
        With that, I yield to Ranking Member Scott for his opening
    remarks.
        [The statement of Chairwoman Foxx follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Hon. Virginia Foxx, Chairwoman, Committee on
                          Education and the Workforce

        Good morning, and welcome to today's full committee hearing. I'd
    like to thank our panel of witnesses and our committee members for
    joining today's discussion on the implementation of the Every Student
    Succeeds Act (ESSA).
        ESSA can be considered a milestone for K-12 policy because it was a
    monumental shift in the role states and school districts would have in
    the future of education.
        ESSA sought to achieve two specific goals for K-12 education:
    autonomy and accountability.
        States and school districts were given new independence when
    creating a K-12 education program that works best for their own
    students, ending a ``Washington knows best'' approach to education.
        Additionally, ESSA specifically prohibited the federal government
    from influencing states' adoption of particular standards. It also
    repealed federal mandates for teacher performance and protected a
    state's right to opt-out of federal education programs.
        Part of ESSA's goal for state and school district autonomy was to
    force Washington to remain at arm's length from states and school
    districts when it comes to education, and rest assured that this
    committee will be watching to ensure Washington keeps its distance.
        While states and school districts were given more autonomy in ESSA,
    the law maintains provisions ensuring parents have transparent
    information about school performance and states and districts can hold
    schools accountable for delivering a high-quality education to all
    students.
        ESSA also included unprecedented restrictions on the Department of
    Education's authority to take back the state and local flexibility
    guaranteed by the law.
        ESSA has stripped away powers of the Department of Education, such
    as the ability of the Secretary of Education to legislate through
    executive fiat, or the ability of the Department's bureaucrats to
    substitute their judgment for states'.
        History made it clear that a top down approach to K-12 education
    did not serve students, teachers, parents, or the states well, and ESSA
    directly addressed those shortcomings.
        Given the monumental shift in education policy represented by ESSA,
    it is important that we hear how implementation is progressing. . We
    know the law will not fully take effect until the coming school year,
    and we will need time to assess its impact on schools and students.
    However, I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses about the
    progress states, school districts, and the Department of Education are
    making.
        This committee has been keeping a close eye on this implementation
    process. Last year, we held four hearings on implementation of ESSA.
    Today, we will continue our discussion on ESSA's implementation.
        ESSA was truly a change for K-12 education, and I do believe this
    bipartisan law delivers the proper balance of autonomy and
    accountability to parents and taxpayers, while ensuring a limited
    federal role.
        This law has the ability to empower state and local leaders to
    change K-12 education for the better, and that is why it is of utmost
    importance to this committee.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and members during
    today's hearing.
                                     ______

        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Madam Chair, for convening this
    morning's hearing on implementation of the Every Student
    Succeeds Act. I would like to thank our witnesses for appearing
    today and I look forward to hearing their testimony.
        It is regrettable, however, Madam Chair, that we are not
    hearing from the U.S. Department of Education, particularly
    considering media reports of the majority's intention to
    critique its implementation of ESSA during today's proceedings.
    I know I, for one, would greatly benefit from an open dialogue
    with the Department on ESSA implementation and for other
    matters.
        Chairwoman Foxx. you will remember that I sent you a letter
    urging Secretary DeVos and other agency heads to appear before
    the committee to discuss the administration's priorities. That
    request has not been fulfilled, so I would like to take the
    opportunity again to ask that Secretary DeVos or any other
    representative from the Department who can discuss the
    administration's priorities appear to engage in an open
    dialogue with this committee.
        Now, ESSA has been the law of the land for nearly 20
    months. Now, while that may seem like a long time in the
    lifecycle of a law as consequential as the Elementary and
    Secondary Education Act which passed over 50 years ago, it is
    really just the beginning.
        States are only now undergoing the peer review and plan
    approval process followed by months of work amidst a
    regrettable chaotic regulatory environment. As I said, I said
    this in February and March, but it bears repeating, when
    Congress used the CRA to block the regulation of title I's core
    requirements, that was unfortunate and counter to the
    bipartisan agreement in ESSA. But this body did go forward with
    the CRA and now that is the reality that we have to work with.
        That lack of regulation, however, means increased
    subjectivity in determining compliance with the law's
    requirements which makes oversight actions of this committee
    even more important. This increased subjectivity without the
    clarifying regulations is apparent in the Department's early
    feedback on State plans that were submitted in May, during the
    May submission window. Some plan components were praised by
    peer reviewers in one State's plan while the same components
    were questioned as insufficient in another. All the while other
    violations of ESSA's equity requirements were overlooked by the
    Department completely.
        Madam Chair, I am disappointed that the media description
    of the reaction from some of our colleagues in the majority who
    have characterized the Education Department's feedback on State
    plans as overreach. There is a difference between overreach and
    simply administering the program. And we need to remember that
    ESSA was not a blank check to States and districts, and while
    the law afforded States and districts much flexibility, that
    flexibility must occur within the law, including guardrails
    concerning the assessments to ascertain persistent achievement
    gaps and accountability to close those achievement gaps.
        Congress designed the law's guardrails to protect the
    interest of the underserved students. And the law contained
    important requirements, requirements Republicans and Democrats
    all agreed to when we voted for ESSA, and those requirements
    must be meaningful. Now, ESSA is not and never has been a free-
    for-all. It is the responsibility of the Department as
    articulated by Congress to carefully scrutinize the quality of
    State plans and only approve those that meet the law's
    requirements.
        Even without regulations the law is the law. And the law
    requires the Secretary to review the plans, ask hard questions,
    and, if necessary, disapprove the plans in the interest of the
    students. And while, as I just mentioned, some of the content
    and overall inconsistency of the Department's feedback may be
    problematic, I do not, and none of us should, take issue with
    the Department attempting to do its job. Feedback must be more,
    not less, consistent and more, not less, vigorous. And
    ultimately, the feedback and submission of plans must result in
    approval only if the plans meet the spirit and the letter of
    the law.
        As we will hear today, many State plans leave much to be
    desired either due to ambiguity or incompleteness in response,
    or due to plan components that violate the law's equity
    requirements. It is my hope that the Department will work with
    States, including through a provision of adequate guidance and
    technical assistance, to improve the overall quality of the
    State plans and ensure implementation that honors the long
    civil rights focus of the ESEA.
        Now, such implementation is only possible with the support
    and partnership of the Federal Government. It is not only the
    role of the Department to support and monitor State efforts to
    comply with the law, but it is also the role of Congress to
    fund programs authorized by ESSA. Despite promises to implement
    the law as Congress intended, Secretary DeVos and President
    Trump proposed the elimination of bedrock ESEA programs, like
    title II-A to support teachers, 21st Century Learning Centers
    to support afterschool programs, and cuts to other programs,
    including an effective cut of nearly $600 million in title I.
        Now, while the House majority fiscal year 2018 Labor-H
    Appropriations Bill is not as draconian as the President's
    request, it fails to honor the bipartisan ESSA agreement by
    eliminating title II-A, cutting afterschool programs and
    maintaining an effective cut to title I that will be felt at
    the local level. Elimination of title II-A would result in
    thousands of layoffs and inhibit local and State efforts to
    improve teacher, paraprofessional, and school leader supports.
    Defunding this program most certainly does not align with the
    bipartisan intent of the authorizing statute.
        And lastly, Trumpcare's proposed cuts to Medicaid, if
    enacted, would devastate services for students with
    disabilities and undermine State and local efforts to educate
    all students to high standards as required by ESSA. And the
    situation would be even worse if the most recent repeal without
    a replace plan is enacted.
        Now, how effective can implementation be without funding? I
    know all too often that State and local education agencies face
    capacity challenges and I would hope to hear from today's
    witnesses about the negative impact of underfunding ESSA
    programs on faithful implementation.
        In closing, I remain concerned about many of the actions of
    Secretary DeVos and this administration concerning our Nation's
    students for example, the recent rhetoric from the Office of
    Civil Rights and the office's directive to ignore systemic data
    when they investigate alleged civil rights violations. The lack
    of agency capacity to carry out key components of the
    Department, including the absence of deputy secretaries, the
    rollback of protections for student borrowers, the rescinding
    of protections for transgender students, the sledgehammer-like
    approach to deregulation without transparency of decision-
    making of the Department, and the decision to cancel the grant
    program to award $12 million to localities to provide technical
    assistance to help them desegregate their schools. All of these
    actions point to a troubling pattern that undermines the
    Federal Government's important role to protect and promote
    civil rights of all students.
        This pattern must not continue with ESSA implementation. I
    say that not out of wishful thinking or partisan spin, but
    because it is what is in the law that we enacted and that needs
    to be enforced. And ESSA is clear: it is the responsibility of
    the Department to review and provide feedback on ESSA State
    plans, make determinations of approvals, of disapprovals, based
    on compliance with the statute and partner, including through
    enforcement activities, with States and school districts to
    support the laws' implementation moving forward.
        It is the responsibility of States and districts to
    innovate within the guardrails of ESSA's equity requirements.
    There may have been a change in administration, but the law is
    the law and the Federal role is clear. I hope this committee
    commits to a robust oversight of ESSA implementation moving
    forward to ensure that it is responsibly fulfilled.
        Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
        [The statement of Mr. Scott follows:]

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

        Thank you, Chairwoman, for convening this morning's hearing on
    implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act. I'd also like to
    thank today's witnesses for appearing before us today. I look forward
    to hearing from each of you.
        It is regrettable; however, that we are not hearing from the US
    Department of Education, especially considering media reports of the
    majority's intention to critique its implementation actions during
    today's proceedings. I know I, for one, would greatly benefit from an
    open dialogue with the Department - on ESSA and on other matters.
        Chairwoman Foxx, you may remember that I sent you a letter urging
    Secretary DeVos and the other agency heads to appear before the
    committee to discuss the administration's priorities. That request has
    not been fulfilled, so I would like to take this opportunity to again
    ask that Secretary DeVos, or another representative of the Department
    appear to engage in an open dialogue with this committee.
        ESSA has been the law of the land for nearly 20 months, and while
    that may seem like a long time, in the lifecycle of a law as
    consequential as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, it really
    is just the beginning. States are only just now undergoing the peer
    review and plan approval process, following months of work amidst a
    regrettably chaotic regulatory environment.
        I said this in February and March, but it bears repeating: I
    believe this Congress' use of the CRA to block regulation of Title I's
    core requirements was misguided and irresponsible. But counter to the
    bipartisan agreement of ESSA, this body did move forward with the CRA -
    and that is now the reality to which we must all adjust. Lack of
    regulation means increased subjectivity in determining compliance with
    the law's requirements, which makes the oversight actions of this
    Committee even more important.
        This increased subjectivity without appropriate regulation is
    apparent in the Department's early feedback on state plans that were
    submitted in the May submission window. Plan components praised by peer
    reviewers in one state's plan were questioned as insufficient in
    another's, while other violations of ESSA's equity requirements are
    ignored by the Department completely.
        I am disappointed with the reaction from some of my colleagues in
    the majority who have characterized ED's state plan feedback as
    overreach.
        Despite the soaring rhetoric, ESSA is not a blank check to states
    and districts. While the law affords states and districts much
    flexibility in decision-making, that flexibility must occur within the
    guardrails of the law - including guardrails concerning the integrity
    of assessments to ascertain persistent achievement gaps and act to
    close them. Congress designed the law's guardrails to protect the
    interests of underserved students.
        The law contains important requirements - requirements Republicans
    and Democrats all agreed to when we voted for ESSA - and those
    requirements must be meaningful. ESSA is not - and never has been - a
    free for all, and it is the responsibility of the Department, as
    articulated by Congress in ESSA, to carefully scrutinize the quality of
    state plans and only approve those that meet the law's requirements.
        Even without accompanying regulations, the law is the law - and the
    law requires the Secretary to review plans, ask hard questions and
    disapprove if necessary - in the interest of students.
        While, as I just mentioned, I find some of the content and the
    overall inconsistency of the Department's feedback to be problematic, I
    do not - and none of us should - take issue with the Department
    attempting to do its job. The feedback must be more consistent and more
    rigorous, not less rigorous. And ultimately, the feedback and
    resubmission of plans must result in approval only of plans that meet
    the spirit and letter of the law.
        As we will hear today, many state plans leave much to be desired,
    either due to ambiguity or incompleteness in response or due to
    proposed plan components that violate the law's equity requirements. It
    is my hope that the
        Department will work with states, including through provision of
    adequate guidance and technical assistance, to improve the overall
    quality of state plans and ensure implementation that honors the
    longstanding civil rights focus of the ESEA.
        Such implementation is only possible with the support and
    partnership of the federal government. Not only is it the role of the
    Department to support and monitor state efforts to comply with the law,
    but it is also the role of Congress to fund programs authorized by
    ESSA.
        Despite promises to implement the law as Congress intended,
    Secretary DeVos and President Trump proposed elimination of bedrock
    ESEA programs - Title II-A to support teachers, 21st Century Community
    Learning Centers to support after school - and cuts to others,
    including an effective cut of nearly $600 million to Title I-A.
        And while the House Majority's FY18 LaborH appropriations bill
    isn't as draconian as the President's budget request, it fails to honor
    the bipartisan agreement of ESSA by eliminating Title II-A, cutting
    afterschool, and maintaining the effective cut to Title I-A that will
    be felt at the local level. Elimination of Title II-A would result in
    thousands of layoffs and inhibit local and state efforts to improve
    teacher, paraprofessional, and school leader supports - defunding this
    program most certainly does not align with the bipartisan intent of the
    authorizing statute.
        Lastly, Trumpcare's proposed cuts to Medicaid, if enacted, will
    devastate services for students with disabilities and undermine state
    and local efforts to educate all students to high standards, as
    required by ESSA.
        How effective can an implementation be without funding? I know all
    too often that state and local educational agencies face capacity
    challenges, and I hope to hear from today's witnesses about the
    negative impact of underfunding ESSA programs on faithful
    implementation.
        In closing, I remain concerned with many of the actions of
    Secretary DeVos and this administration concerning our nation's
    students -
        * the recent rhetoric from OCR and the office's directive to ignore
    systemic data in investigating alleged civil rights violations;
        * the lack of agency capacity to carry out key department
    functions;
        * the rollbacks of protections for student borrowers;
        * rescinding protections for transgender students; and
        * the sledgehammer-like approach to deregulation without
    transparency of decision-making at the department...
        All of these actions point to a troubling pattern that undermines
    the federal government's important role to protect and promote the
    civil rights of all students.
        This pattern must not continue with ESSA implementation. I say that
    not out of wishful thinking or partisan spin, but because that's what
    the law we wrote and enacted demands.
        ESSA is clear - it is the responsibility of the Department to
    review and provide feedback of ESSA state plans, make determinations of
    approval or disapproval based on compliance with statute, and partner,
    including through enforcement activities, with states and school
    districts to support the law's implementation moving forward.
        And it is the responsibility of states and district to innovate
    within the guardrails of ESSA's equity requirements. There may have
    been a change in administration, but the law is the law and the federal
    role is clear. I hope this committee commits to robust oversight of
    ESSA implementation moving forward to ensure that responsibility is
    fulfilled.
        Thank you and I yield back.
                                     ______

        Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Scott. Pursuant to
    committee rule 7C all members will be permitted to submit
    written statements to be included in the permanent hearing
    record. 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.
        I now turn to introductions of our distinguished witnesses.
    Ms. Jacqueline Nowicki is the director of K-12 education for
    the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Dr. Gail Pletnick is
    the superintendent for the Dysart Unified School District in
    Surprise, Arizona. Mr. Phillip Lovell is vice president of
    policy development and government relations at the Alliance for
    Excellent Education. Dr. Carey Wright is the superintendent of
    education for Mississippi.
        I now ask our witnesses to raise your right hand.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Chairwoman Foxx. Let the record reflect the witnesses
    answered in the affirmative.
        Before I recognize each of you to provide your testimony,
    let me briefly explain our lighting system. We allow 5 minutes
    for each witness to provide testimony. When you begin, the
    light in front of you will turn green. When 1 minute is left,
    the light will turn yellow. At the 5-minute mark the light will
    turn red and you should wrap up your testimony. Members will
    each have 5 minutes to ask questions.
        We now recognize Ms. Nowicki for 5 minutes.

    TESTIMONY OF JACQUELINE NOWICKI, DIRECTOR, K-12 EDUCATION, U.S.
                    GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

        Ms. Nowicki. Good morning, Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member
    Scott, and members of the committee. I appreciate the
    opportunity to discuss GAO's new report on early observations
    on State accountability systems under ESSA. As you well know,
    ESSA requires States to have accountability systems that meet
    certain requirements, but grant States flexibility in designing
    these systems.
        We focused our work on four areas of State accountability
    systems: one, determining long-term goals; two, developing
    performance indicators; three, differentiating schools; and
    four, identifying and assisting low performers. We did so
    because stakeholder groups identified these as key components
    of accountability systems under ESSA and as areas in which
    States are making changes.
        My remarks today will focus on two key areas. First, I'll
    discuss stakeholder views on ESSA's flexibilities to redesign
    accountability systems. Second, I'll discuss next steps for the
    Department of Education in implementing ESSA.
        In regards to my first point, all nine national stakeholder
    groups with whom we spoke saw ESSA's accountability provisions
    as somewhat flexible. For example, most of them praised the
    ability to define their own performance indicators.
        Most stakeholders also indicated that ESSA strikes a good
    balance between flexibility and requirements. For example, one
    stakeholder said that ESSA threads the needle very well between
    offering flexibility to design systems that meet State needs
    and requiring States to protect vulnerable populations.
        The extent to which States are changing their current
    systems varies. Some States are pleased with the systems they
    developed under their NCLB waivers and are continuing down that
    path. But for States that see their current systems as lacking
    in some way or when stakeholder consultation highlighted the
    need for significant change, we were told that ESSA provides
    room for States to consider innovative revisions.
        Our report provides many examples of how two States, Ohio
    and California, are tailoring their accountability systems of
    each of the four areas I mentioned. I would like to highlight
    one example here. To address ESSA's requirements to
    differentiate schools, Ohio plans to tweak its six current
    indicators to assess school and student performance. Some of
    these indicators would measure current performance while others
    would measure growth.
        And schools would receive a letter grade on each indicator
    as well as an overall letter grade. Ohio officials felt that
    this approach would provide detailed information on various
    elements of their performance system as well as provide an
    easily understandable high-level overview of performance.
        In California, the plan is to use a color-coded dashboard
    to differentiate school and students' subgroup performance on
    each of six indicators. Each indicator will measure current
    performance as well as growth over time.
        Unlike Ohio, California does not plan to aggregate the
    indicators into an overall score. State officials said they
    chose not to aggregate because they feel that doing so can mask
    individual problem areas. They also told us that measuring
    current performance and growth for each indicator provides a
    more complete picture of performance.
        With regard to my second point, given current timelines,
    the Department of Education remains focused on providing
    assistance to States in developing their plans and on the
    review and approval process for plans. Moving forward a key
    next step in ESSA implementation is for the Department to
    develop and implement State monitoring protocols. Although
    draft protocols were not available at the time of our review,
    education officials said that they planned to pilot protocols
    with eight or nine States in early 2018.
        The Department's goal is to review all States within a 3-
    to 4-year cycle. Education officials also told us that they are
    considering whether there is a need for additional guidance for
    States. During our review, most national stakeholder groups
    told us that States could use guidance on a number of issues
    such as how to identify and evaluate appropriate evidence-based
    interventions.
        In closing, I hope our early observations shine some light
    on how States are thinking about their accountability systems
    in the context of ESSA's flexibilities. ESSA implementation is
    still in the early days and much work lies ahead for both
    States and the Department of Education before the promise of
    ESSA can be fully realized.
        We look forward to working with you to support your efforts
    to oversee implementation of this important law. This completes
    my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to answer any questions
    you may have.
        [The statement of Ms. Nowicki follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Ms. Nowicki.
        Dr. Pletnick, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Would you
    turn on your microphone, please?

      TESTIMONY OF GAIL PLETNICK, SUPERINTENDENT, DYSART UNIFIED
                            SCHOOL DISTRICT

        Ms. Pletnick. Thank you. Chairman Foxx, Ranking Member
    Scott, members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity
    to join you today. I am the superintendent of the Dysart School
    District in Arizona, and I also serve as president of AASA, the
    school superintendent association.
        I am here today because I believe it is critical we
    continue to work together to ensure the underserved populations
    in our schools truly benefit from the educational promise that
    the Every Student Succeeds Act, ESSA, was designed to deliver.
    I thank you and the committee for convening this ESSA hearing.
        The House of Representatives and the Senate are to be
    applauded for the hard work that was done to craft ESSA moving
    from the one-size-fits-all of No Child Left Behind to restoring
    control of education to the States and the local communities.
    Although ESSA may not be perfect, the power of the law is the
    flexibility it provides to States and schools allowing the
    focus to be on the individual student.
        I have the opportunity to talk with superintendents from
    across the State of Arizona and across the Nation about the
    progress made in ESSA implementation. A common thread in those
    conversations is that ESSA has created an opportunity for
    stakeholders to become more involved in goal-setting and
    establishing accountability processes as part of the
    consolidated plan requirement of ESSA.
        ESSA requires efforts to consult with and engage
    stakeholders when developing a consolidated State plan. In
    Arizona, committees and advisory groups were established to
    provide input at various stages of the plan development,
    feeding input into the process of building a final consolidated
    plan. I had the privilege of participating in some of these
    established subgroups and I also attended public meetings
    designed to provide comment on proposed components in the plan.
        I am not going to tell you that Arizona has developed the
    ideal educational plan for our State. There is definitely room
    for continued improvement as we implement ESSA, see what works,
    and continue to rollback State policies that lock in NCLB error
    constraints. Stakeholders are engaged in conversation around
    the needs in our educational systems, a discussion that is
    important to driving the improvement necessary to provide an
    equitable quality education to each student.
        A second promise of ESSA statute that many States are
    realizing is the ability to utilize multiple indicators for
    evaluation of our schools. In Arizona, we still rely heavily on
    annual summative tests, but the flexibility in ESSA started a
    conversation about other meaningful measures that should be
    considered. Although not without faults, the revised
    accountability system in Arizona attempts to add indicators of
    significance. And that is something that we continue to look
    forward to improving.
        At the high school level, indicators incorporated include
    career and technical education assessments, advanced academic
    coursework indicators, and earned career credentials. The
    State's elementary level measures of accountability are far
    more restrictive, but conversation in the State of Arizona
    continues around exploring additional important measures. While
    we don't have it 100 percent right in Arizona just yet, I can
    say the flexibility in ESSA around State accountability systems
    does encourage conversation among stakeholders about more
    accurate indicators of student and school success.
        There were challenges with the implementation of ESSA law.
    Time was definitely one of the biggest challenges. After the
    passage of the law, there was discussion related to the
    interpretation of the law and possible or proposed regulations
    and that debate caused some hesitation.
        Arizona released its first draft and started the
    consolidated planning process in September of 2016, and the
    plan required adjustments before our submission for the
    September 2017 deadline. Another complication as it related to
    time is that some States, including Arizona, had laws in place
    better aligned to No Child Left Behind mandates or waivers.
    With those State laws still in existence, there was an impact
    on what was required in our State plan and accountability
    system.
        Although that is not a Federal concern, it does impact how
    innovative our State plans may be at this point. A great deal
    of time and effort went into Congress writing this piece of
    legislation and negotiating on those critical components that
    make ESSA a good piece of educational legislation.
        The ultimate success of ESSA lies in our implementation,
    yes, but also in Federal appropriations. It is critical
    Congress match the bipartisan support demonstrated for the
    policy of the law and appropriate the funding support.
        I respectfully submit that as we continue to work together
    to implement ESSA and ensure it has the intended impact that we
    be cognizant of the important complementary role of adequate
    Federal investment. The students in our schools are our future
    leaders, our future workforce, and we must invest in our future
    by investing in public education.
        In closing, thank you to the committee for the work you
    have done and continue to do to ensure that the Every Student
    Succeeds Act drives the change we all want to see in our
    schools: equity in our classrooms regardless of a student's
    background, where they live, or the circumstances they live in.
    Your work has ensured our State and local communities have a
    voice in what happens in our districts and our schools.
        I know, given the opportunity, educational leaders across
    this country will use that voice to deliver on the promise of
    ESSA. Thank you so much.
        [The statement of Ms. Pletnick follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Dr. Pletnick.
        Mr. Lovell, you're recognized for 5 minutes.

         TESTIMONY OF PHILLIP LOVELL, VICE PRESIDENT OF POLICY
     DEVELOPMENT AND GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, ALLIANCE FOR EXCELLENT
                               EDUCATION

        Mr. Lovell. Thank you very much. Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking
    Member Scott, and members of the committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify on the implementation of the Every
    Student Succeeds Act. My name is Phillip Lovell and I am the
    vice president for policy development and government relations
    at the Alliance for Excellent Education. We are a national
    nonprofit organization dedicated to ensuring that every child
    graduates from high school, ready for college, career, and
    citizenship.
        I have four core messages for you today. First, ESSA is a
    civil rights law designed to ensure equity and excellence in
    education. Second, ESSA preserves an important role for the
    U.S. Department of Education. Third, the quality of ESSA State
    plans is uneven. And fourth, funding cuts threaten the
    implementation of the law.
        Let me begin with point one. ESSA is fundamentally a civil
    rights law with many Federal requirements designed to promote
    educational equity and prepare students for postsecondary
    education and the workforce. ESSA provides States with a
    significant level of flexibility when it comes to how they
    achieve equity and excellence, but ESSA is not a blank check.
        Both States and the Department of Education must implement
    and enforce all of ESSA's equity-focused requirements, a sample
    list of which appears in my written testimony.
        Second, when Congress enacted ESSA it preserved the limited
    but critical role of the Department of Education. While I may
    not agree with all of its findings, the Department is
    appropriately carrying out its oversight role as required under
    the law. I want to be clear that this isn't about whether we
    trust States. I have worked with many State leaders and I know
    that they are committed to kids, and one needs to look no
    further than my colleagues testifying today to know that is a
    fact.
        The fact does remain, though, that it is the Department's
    job to review the State plans and to ensure that they comply
    with the law that this committee wrote. These plans lay out a
    State's vision and commitment to children, parents, and the
    public, and it will impact students and teachers for at least
    the next decade. We have to get this right and the Department
    has a critical and statutorily required role to play.
        Third, the quality of ESSA State plans is uneven. There are
    certainly some strengths, but there are missed opportunities
    and many weaknesses, including some proposals that simply
    violate the law. In particular, many plans fall short of the
    equity promise of ESSA.
        And let me give you a few examples. ESSA made a commitment
    that if a school has a single subgroup that consistently
    underperforms, either the African American students, Latino
    students, the school would be identified for targeted support
    and those kids would receive help. ESSA applies this
    requirement to each individual subgroup separately because
    groups of students perform differently. And if you combine them
    together you can mask the low performance of a single group.
        Unfortunately, this is exactly what some States are doing.
    One State combines the achievement levels of African American,
    Latino, and native students together even though this creates a
    risk that the schools may not be identified for support when
    they should be. It also violates the law.
        A related but distinct problem is that States are not
    including historically underserved kids in their school
    ratings. For example, a school might receive an A despite the
    fact that African American students or Latino students or
    students with disabilities or low-income kids, other
    historically underserved groups might have, say, a low
    graduation rate. So you can receive an A even though, say,
    African American kids could have a graduation rate of 60
    percent.
        Another problem for equity in ESSA plans relates to the
    identification of subgroups for support. Several States have
    proposed identifying subgroups for support if they aren't on
    grade level in math or reading or if they have a low graduation
    rate, and this makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately, the
    Department has actually pushed back on this approach. Students
    should not have to fail on everything before they are
    identified for support.
        In addition, it is worth noting that while ESSA's
    flexibility was intended to unleash creativity and innovation,
    by and large this has not happened. We hope to see policies
    that would promote critical thinking and problem-solving,
    sometimes called deeper learning. And although there are a few
    notable exceptions described in my written testimony, and here
    to my left I would say, State plans thus far are cautious, not
    courageous.
        Finally, I join my colleagues in expressing concerns about
    funding. Money is not magic, but I am concerned about the
    impact of funding cuts on ESSA. ESSA provides States with
    flexibility and responsibility. But, Madam Chair,
    responsibility without resources will not yield results.
        By freezing funding for title I, underfunding title IV,
    proposing to eliminate or reduce funding for professional
    development, literacy, afterschool programs, on top of proposed
    cuts to Medicaid that jeopardize the services that schools
    provide to our most vulnerable kids, we are handcuffing States
    at the exact moment that we have supposedly given them freedom.
        This is unfortunate because the Nation is on an upswing in
    education. Graduation rates are at an all-time high, including
    graduation rates for students who have been historically
    underserved. By implementing and enforcing ESSA's requirements
    and strengthening our investment in education, we can ensure
    that every child in American succeeds.
        Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions.
        [The statement of Mr. Lowell follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Lovell.
        Dr. Wright, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

     TESTIMONY OF CAREY WRIGHT, STATE SUPERINTENDENT, MISSISSIPPI
                        DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

        Ms. Wright. Thank you. Before I want to start I wanted to
    introduce people that are key to the implementation of this
    back in my State. I have my State board chair, Ms. Rosemary
    Aultman, with me; the vice chair, Dr. Jason Dean; and one of my
    chiefs who is responsible for legislation and communication who
    are here with me today. So thank you.
        Chairman Foxx, Ranking Member Scott, and members of the
    committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify about
    Mississippi's work to implement the Every Student Succeeds Act
    or ESSA. I look forward to sharing my perspective as the state
    superintendent of education for Mississippi, and I am also
    president-elect of the board of directors for the Council of
    Chief State School Officers.
        ESSA has given Mississippi the opportunity to create a plan
    specifically designed for the students of our State. At the
    same time, the law provides guardrails to ensure our work is
    appropriately targeted toward improving educational
    opportunities and outcomes for all students and all schools.
        Our plan is called Mississippi Succeeds and we are proud
    that it builds upon our State board's strong strategic plan to
    prepare students for college and careers. This strong
    foundation includes a rigorous academic standards for all
    students, aligned assessments to track student achievement, and
    an accountability model that clearly measures the performance
    of our schools and our districts.
        Our ESSA plan also builds upon the significant investments
    that Mississippi has made in early childhood education,
    literacy, career and technical education, advanced coursework
    opportunities for students, and professional development for
    all teachers. All of these initiatives have broad stakeholder
    support and have resulted in improved student outcomes.
        To design Mississippi Succeeds we again sought raw input
    from stakeholders over an 18-month period to craft a plan
    tailored to the needs of our students. During those 18 months,
    we conducted a listening tour which included 15 public meetings
    throughout the State. We hosted targeted meetings with specific
    stakeholder groups, and collected feedback through an online
    survey.
        Among our most active participants were advocates for the
    underserved, majority African-American communities in rural,
    low-income areas of the State, parents of students with
    disabilities, and teachers of English language learners.
    Mississippi has a small but growing population of English
    learners and most of the teachers of the English learners who
    participated in our feedback sessions were the only people in
    their schools whose work was dedicated to English learners.
        Throughout these meetings and the online survey, we
    gathered 7,300 feedback points. We established working groups,
    and we established an ESSA advisory committee made up of
    stakeholders to provide us feedback and input throughout the
    entire development of our plan.
        We intend to keep all of our partners engaged in our
    implementation of the plan through regular meetings with our
    stakeholders as well as with the ESSA advisory committee. The
    robust participation of stakeholders helped Mississippi develop
    a strong plan to meet the requirements of ESSA. And I am
    especially excited about the following aspects of our plan;
    providing effective teachers with the opportunities to not only
    teach children, but to work collaboratively to lead colleagues
    to improve their practice, expanding early childhood to support
    early childhood educators in a variety of pre-K settings to
    implement developmentally appropriate practices in their
    classrooms, improving schools by investing in the local
    teachers and administrators, supporting communities through P16
    councils, strengthening parent engagement through school-based
    activities.
        We appreciate the flexibility of ESSA because we intend to
    include subgroup performance to identify schools for school
    improvement support. This will have the greatest impact on
    African American students who make up our State's largest
    underperforming subgroup. We are expanding career and technical
    education to provide continuous computer science education in
    grades K through 12 and to provide our high school students
    with the opportunity to graduate with a career and technical
    diploma endorsement that is of equal value to an academic
    endorsement.
        We are putting a strong focus on eliminating the
    proficiency gap between African Americans and all students
    entirely so that the proficiency rates for all of our subgroups
    will increase to 70 percent by 2025. All of these initiatives
    are dependent on Federal support for public education. As a
    State chief, I understand that Federal resources are limited
    and that States must be effective stewards of tax dollars.
        Mississippi's ESSA plan is built around the targeted and
    efficient use of Federal funds to maximize the impact on
    student achievement, especially of our most disadvantaged
    students. I want to thank you for the flexibility that you have
    provided through the Every Student Succeeds Act, and as you can
    see, our Mississippi Succeeds will expand the State's education
    reform efforts to improve opportunities and outcomes for all
    students.
        Mississippi's future will be shaped by the students of
    today and we are deeply committed to equipping them to learn,
    build, create, serve, and innovate. We believe in the capacity
    of our students to achieve and we believe in the ability of our
    teachers and schools to guide them to a successful future. ESSA
    is at the heart of our work. Thank you.
        [The statement of Ms. Wright follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Dr. Wright. Thanks again to all
    of our witnesses.
        Mr. Wilson, you are recognized for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. Thank you, Chairwoman
    Virginia Foxx, for your extraordinary leadership providing for
    this hearing today. And I want to thank each of you for being
    here today. I especially appreciate your service because I am
    the very happy husband of a dedicated teacher. And I want to
    keep her happy, too, so thank you for what you are doing.
        And, Dr. Wright, South Carolina students greatly benefit
    from career and technical education with partnerships with
    companies such as BMW, MTU, Michelin, and Boeing, and the South
    Carolina Technical Education System. South Carolina has been
    very fortunate with a division of technical education being
    promoted under the leadership of State superintendents of
    education from Dr. Barbara Neilsen to today with the Honorable
    Molly Spearman.
        In your testimony you include several aspects of your
    State's plans to meet the requirements of the Every Student
    Succeeds Act, and you cited the efforts of career and technical
    education. Can you elaborate your promotion of career and
    technical education for the citizens of Mississippi?
        Ms. Wright. Yes, I will. About 65 percent of the jobs that
    are currently available in our State are requiring metal
    skills. And so we have formed a committee that is working not
    only with our State Workforce Investment Board, but also on the
    implementation of the Workforce Investment Act. We have four
    sectors in our State and what we have done is we have
    established groups in each of those sectors to work directly
    with the businesses in those sectors so that we can then come
    back and design CTE plans that will allow our children to go,
    starting in high school, graduate from high school, and go
    immediately into the workforce. Our State needs that immediate
    piece and that is what we have got planned as well.
        Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. And what a meaningful and
    fulfilling life you help young people achieve, so thank you for
    what you do.
        And, Dr. Pletnick, I want to thank you for your testimony
    on a very important issue and that is local elected school
    boards. And I know that my view is that they work best for our
    students. I learned this firsthand. My dad was a school board
    member in Charleston. I served in the State senate working with
    school boards and found out the extraordinary diversity within
    a single district that these school boards have to address, and
    they are hard work, but the extraordinary dedication of school
    board members.
        Your testimony promotes, again, moving from one size fits
    all. Can you provide more detail on how the Every Student
    Succeeds Act will help restore local control of education and
    allow educators to address the unique needs of individual
    students?
        Ms. Pletnick. Member Wilson, thank you for that question.
    In the Dysart Unified School District, we utilize a strategic
    planning process, so our community gives us that feedback. We
    work with our business partners. We work with our parents to
    ensure that we are meeting the needs of our students in our
    local community. And our school board is that connection. So
    they are the elected officials.
        The ESSA has allowed us then to work through our State to
    ensure that the multiple measures that we are utilizing speak
    to those needs of our students, certainly our underserved
    population, but really for all students making certain that
    they are future ready.
        We, too, have a very strong career and technical education
    program because we hear from our local community and from our
    business partners that there are opportunities. We have Luke
    Air Force Base in our backyard. We recently took a tour and it
    takes 2 billion lines of code to run the F-35. They have that
    mission. And so we are ensuring that our students have
    opportunities with coding and other pieces.
        That is something that is a strong piece in our strategic
    plan as we move forward. And so again, ESSA provides us that
    opportunity to look at multiple indicators and those that would
    truly serve our underserved population, but all of our students
    as well.
        Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. And thank you for, again,
    looking out for all students. As I served in the State senate,
    now Congress, I represent a district, Lexington 1. The
    diversity there, you have resort areas. You have very upscale
    subdivisions. You have normal middle class subdivisions. You
    have a small town. You have rural communities and then you have
    agricultural communities. That is in one district. And so the
    local school board is just so important.
        And, Ms. Nowicki, I want to thank you for your service and
    your promotion of flexibility. Can you explain how flexibility
    of the act would provide for a different approach in adopting
    performance indicators?
        Ms. Nowicki. Sorry, sir. You are asking how the flexibility
    of the act could?
        Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. Assist with performance
    indicators - in determining performance indicators.
        Ms. Nowicki. Sure, sure. So there were a couple of
    different examples in our report where States were making
    different decisions, I think, around performance indicators.
    The way they defined subgroups, how they were choosing to use
    summative or overall ratings versus individual ratings on
    indicators.
        I think it provides flexibility for States to do whatever
    they think makes sense for them in their local context while
    providing sufficient guardrails to protect vulnerable
    populations and subgroups.
        Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. Thank you very much.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
        Mr. Courtney, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you
    for holding this really important hearing, but I want to join
    the ranking member in saying how I think a lot of us feel
    frustration about the fact that the Secretary of Education has
    not yet appeared before this committee. It has been 6 months
    into this administration. We have had a budget out since May.
    And looking historically, we have always had the Secretary of
    Education appear before this committee to take questions from
    members about issues of the day.
        And clearly, what we are talking about today for all of us
    listening to our commissioners back home, stakeholders who have
    been working hard on implementation of ESSA, there is a lot of
    confusion out there, and we need people from the Department,
    particularly the person who is in charge, where the buck stops,
    to answer questions about where are we going.
        The ESSA was signed into law on December 10, 2015. It was
    actually a really inspiring tableau to see President Obama
    signing that law with Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican
    leader in the Senate, Mr. Rokita from our committee was
    standing behind the president. Again, it was a lot of hard work
    that went into that to, again, achieve some of the goals that
    some of the witnesses have talked about here today.
        But fast-forward and it is really not that early in the
    implementation of the law to where we are today in 2017. There
    is a lot of confusion out there about just the mixed messages
    and signals that are coming out of the Department as States are
    working hard to try and, again, achieve the goals of this
    legislation. It has not been helped, by the way, by the fact
    that the Republican majority chainsawed out of the Federal law
    the regulations, back in May, with the Congressional Review Act
    enactment that President Trump signed into law. That, again,
    just completely eliminated, you know, the roadmap that had been
    put into place by the Department.
        Again, I had questions about some of those regs. But the
    fact is now we have a black hole in the Federal law in terms
    of, you know, how ESSA is structured and designed. And when you
    talk about confusion out there, frankly, the majority added to
    that confusion by, in my opinion, just indiscriminately
    butchering the regs that were in place.
        And so that is where we are today. Again, my State of
    Connecticut did everything right, I think, in terms of pulling
    together stakeholders. They worked like, you know, very
    diligently in terms of coming up with a plan which was
    submitted. Again, it got kicked back about a month or so ago.
        Talking to the folks in that Department, you know, they
    want to, you know, work collaboratively, but, frankly, there is
    tremendous confusion about, you know, which direction they are
    supposed to go in. And frankly, again, it is just another
    reason why the Secretary should be here today answering
    questions to all of us about where she, in fact, intends to
    take this Department.
        We know when there's confusion in Washington going back to
    the infamous words of Deep Throat during the Watergate scandal,
    follow the money. Again, Mr. Lovell, I would just like to sort
    of follow up your comments. We obviously have seen a budget
    come out of this administration in terms of their priorities as
    far as title I, title II, afterschool. Again, one of the goals
    of ESSA was to move away from the punitive approach of No Child
    Left Behind and to try and help districts who had been
    identified as underperforming.
        And again, I just would ask you to comment further about,
    you know, cutting these programs, in fact, removes the
    resources that ESSA was built around in terms of trying to help
    school districts that are struggling.
        Mr. Lovell. Thank you very much. I could not agree more. In
    fact, it is interesting. So one of the issues that came up just
    a few minutes ago, Mr. Wilson, you brought up career and
    technical education. And I think that is a huge opportunity
    within this law.
        And, first, let me applaud the committee for its works on
    the reauthorization of the Perkins law. Unfortunately, because
    of the levels of funding that are being proposed for things
    like career and technical education and the cuts therein, we
    are not able to implement a lot of those programs.
        Right now, with States having the ability to design their
    plans and implement them, the integration of rigorous academics
    with CTE is a major opportunity. There is language specifically
    in the law that you wrote within title I that allows States to
    do this and not only that, you allowed States to use up to 3
    percent of their funding for direct student services.
        And one of the uses of the direct student services funding
    that you allowed was the provision of CTE that leads to an
    industry-recognized credential. Very few States are planning to
    use this 3 percent set-aside for direct student services. And
    why? Well, it is because they feel like it cuts into their
    title I budget.
        So by level funding title I by cutting elsewhere, that
    means the title I dollars are going to have to go towards other
    things. And it means that States do not have the ability to
    really carry out the vision of the law that this committee set.
        Mr. Courtney. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Courtney.
        Mr. Walberg, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you to
    the panel being here. And I would concur with Mr. Courtney as
    well that it would be a great opportunity and time when we have
    a chance to hear from our Secretary of Education. I believe my
    colleagues would be impressed with her as much as I am
    impressed with her abilities and yet, we also hope that there
    is a stopping of the stonewalling and blocking of confirmations
    that would assist her with people who can be undersecretaries,
    assistants, et cetera, to help in the process moving forward
    with something she has identified, ESSA, something she wants to
    implement as intended, as we intended fully. So I look forward
    to that as well.
        But today we have these witnesses here and, Ms. Nowicki,
    thank you for being here. In your testimony you mentioned that
    the Department is considering additional areas of guidance that
    might be needed for States as they implement ESSA. Has the
    Department said what those areas might be and how will they
    determine if that additional guidance is, in fact, needed?
        Ms. Nowicki. Yes, sir. The Department has said that they
    are conducting a review of all of their current guidance that
    is available and looking for gaps or areas where States might
    need additional assistance. They have various ways to do that.
    They have mentioned webinars that they hold and meetings that
    provide a forum for States to share some concerns or some areas
    where they may need guidance.
        In our work, stakeholders who are working directly with
    States developing their plans mentioned a couple of areas as
    well.
        Mr. Walberg. If you could highlight some of those?
        Ms. Nowicki. Surely. One is how to select evidence-based
    strategies and measure their efficacy in the States. It is not
    unusual throughout government and in the States for there to be
    a lack of capacity in terms of knowing how to evaluate
    strategies. So that was one area.
        A second area was noting that because ESSA provides much
    more funding flexibility than did NCLB, helping States
    understand the broad funding flexibilities that they do have
    available to them and the law would be useful for States.
        Mr. Walberg. And those flexibilities are just name a few of
    those? Flexibilities ----
        Ms. Nowicki. Funding flexibilities to combine funding
    streams under the law in ways that they were not able to do
    under NCLB.
        Mr. Walberg. With local States, et cetera?
        Ms. Nowicki. Yes, different Federal and State local funds
    together.
        Mr. Walberg. Okay. Ms. Nowicki, this is obviously an
    initial look at early implementation of ESSA, but do you
    believe there is future work GAO could do on this topic as
    States put the law into practice over the next few years?
        Ms. Nowicki. Absolutely. I think in the shorter run two
    areas may be important. One, I think it will be important to
    pay attention to how Education's monitoring protocols are
    shaping up. ESSA obviously encourages a much more State-driven
    approach in developing their plans and we would want to see
    monitoring protocols reflect that. Yet developing them in a way
    that also holds States accountable for Federal requirements may
    take some doing.
        Two, I think it will be important to look at how States are
    making the public aware of differences in school and district
    performance in their States and whether key stakeholders find
    that information useful. We like to say at GAO that data is
    only useful if it is used and that usefulness is in the eye of
    the beholder. So if stakeholders and parents are not able to
    access the information or do not find that it is telling them
    things that they would like to know, I think it would be
    important to know that.
        Mr. Walberg. Well, I appreciate that and, Madam Chairwoman,
    I appreciate the fact as we heard that testimony we talked more
    about stakeholders at the local and State level as opposed to
    Federal and that is a good thing.
        Dr. Pletnick, thanks for being here. ESSA returns
    significant authority to school districts to determine how to
    intervene in and how to improve low-performing schools, which
    is important to consider if we are expecting education to reach
    the masses of our country. What initiatives are in place in
    your district or are you working to implement that will do just
    that?
        Ms. Pletnick. Member Walberg, we have put in place a number
    of initiatives. First of all, when we are looking at each of
    our schools we take a proactive approach rather than reactive
    approach. So we make sure that the programs that we have in
    place are providing that high-quality education. We use an RTI
    process in which we have tiered intervention. So tier 1 is that
    classroom. We need high-quality teachers delivering high-
    quality instruction.
        And then if we do have our struggling students, especially
    in our underserved populations, we need to evaluate what it is
    their specific needs are. Again, I believe ESSA versus No Child
    Left Behind allows us to focus on that individual student, not
    just the aggregate.
        So we provide those interventions sometimes through
    interventionists. We have online programs because we really
    want access 24/7 for our students in order to provide the
    supports they need. And again, the intensity of those
    interventions continues to grow as we work with the individual
    student to fill those needs.
        The other thing that we are doing across the district is
    personalized learning. So we are looking at what the students'
    strengths are, certainly their area of challenges, but also
    their interests because we need to engage our students in their
    learning. We need them to own their own learning.
        So we are working on ways to really not only have them own
    that learning, understand about progress, but also ways that we
    could use space and place and pace differently.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Dr. Pletnick, I am going to have to ask
    you to wind up.
        Ms. Pletnick. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Walberg. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Mr. Polis, you are recognized.
        Mr. Polis. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member
    Scott, for holding this important education hearing. You know,
    when I first ran for Congress several years ago, one of the
    main reasons I ran was to fix our outdated education policy, No
    Child Left Behind. During my time on the State Board of
    Education in Colorado and as a school superintendent, I saw a
    lot of the flaws of No Child Left Behind firsthand and I was
    thrilled to work on the Every Student Succeeds Act in this
    committee, in the conference committee. A number of bills that
    I wrote were incorporated into that bill and I was very excited
    by a step forward that I think everybody felt was better than
    its predecessor.
        Now, I am troubled now by some of the comments I have heard
    from my Republican colleagues, who seem to be suggesting that
    since we passed the Every Student Succeeds Act, States can
    somehow do whatever they want. The goal of the Every Student
    Succeeds Act was to maintain, of course, our civil rights,
    guardrails, and safeguards, and, in fact, to provide school
    districts and States the flexibility to do what works, but not
    the flexibility to fail and to do nothing.
        No one here voted to let States and school districts fail
    when we passed the Every Student Succeeds Act. So we should not
    be surprised the Department of Education is providing
    meaningful and positive feedback to the States. It helps them
    to develop and implement their ESSA plans and that they will
    only approve plans that meet the law's requirements. That was
    the requirements that we, as a body, you know, overwhelmingly
    voted to include in the actual law.
        Dr. Pletnick, I wanted to thank you for being here today.
    Really one of the ironies that I see is while the Department of
    Education is trying to do a good job providing feedback to
    States, at the same time, both by the President's budget and
    the congressional Republicans', they're slashing funding for
    some of the key programs, and I want to highlight one in
    particular.
        Colorado, like many other States, went through an extensive
    stakeholder engagement process to develop title II as part of
    our State plan for teacher and professional development. Last
    week, House Republicans moved forward with the budget that
    eliminates funding for title II, part A, the real significant
    funding stream for teacher professional development and
    classroom size reduction.
        How can States deal with this uncertainty around the use of
    funds for teacher and professional development and classroom
    size reduction that are already included in their plans if the
    funding goes away?
        Ms. Pletnick. Thank you for that question. That is a
    problem. When there are funding cuts that means either the
    elimination or cutting back on programs and many of these are
    critical. I can tell you in the State of Arizona for title II
    the impact would be about $16.9 million in professional
    development. That is supporting more than 34,000 educators.
    Class size reduction would be impacted and that would impact
    about 137 positions that we have. And statewide the impact of
    the total title II elimination would be about $32.5 million. So
    it would have a devastating impact in those areas.
        Mr. Polis. And given that those education plans included
    the use of that money for teacher training classroom reduction,
    does that mean that it will send, in effect, States back to the
    drawing board for their title II plans and their teacher
    training plans?
        Ms. Pletnick. I think that would be correct because our
    budgets are very tight and so, again, when we have elimination
    of funding, that means you have to go back and look at your
    programs. And quite frankly, all of the programs that we have
    in our own district I can say are essential, including those
    that we provide for professional development.
        Mr. Polis. And for Mr. Lovell I wanted to ask, you know,
    one area where we also made progress in the Every Student
    Succeeds Act is early learning, the most important, the studies
    show, investment in early childhood education. We authorized a
    new preschool development grant program. The law will hopefully
    facilitate better collaboration between early learning and K-
    12. Can you talk about how States so far are taking advantage
    of new opportunities to support early learning under ESSA and
    what lessons we can learn from some of the States that have
    submitted their early learning components and their plan?
        Mr. Lovell. Thank you, Mr. Polis. Well, really the answer
    to that question goes back to your first question, which is
    that plans that might be in place or ideas that we might have
    are going to be severely undercut if there is no resources to
    fund them. And so you have cuts that are being proposed both by
    the administration, by the House Labor-H Committee, you have
    got cuts being pondered for Medicaid. You put all that together
    and it is hard for States to really envision something robust
    and necessary and costly like a robust early childhood program.
        Mr. Polis. Yeah, and I think, you know, to clarify what you
    are saying, when our committee writes the authorizing
    legislation, the Every Student Succeeds Act, it's only as good
    as the funding that actually funds those programs that we
    authorize.
        Dr. Wright, can you briefly share more about what
    Mississippi is doing in early learning?
        Ms. Wright. Absolutely, and thank you for that. We passed a
    law establishing early learning collaboratives. That was the
    first time that we went into that foray. We are also looking
    and monitoring the results of that. We, with our kindergarten
    assessment, we realized that two-thirds of our children that
    were entering kindergarten were not prepared. So we knew that
    there was a need for pre-K.
        And so now we are also reaching out to all of the pre-K,
    public or private, in order to provide them with professional
    development. We do that free of charge to anyone that teaches
    three- or four-year-olds in our State. And we honestly believe
    that it is a lever that is going to make a difference in the
    State of Mississippi. So we have a lot of interest in that and
    a lot of infrastructure that we are putting toward that.
        Mr. Polis. I thank the gentlelady. And just in brief
    closing, I will just inquire of the chair if we have invited or
    plan to invite Secretary Devos for an oversight hearing before
    our committee as well. And I will yield back with that inquiry.
        Chairwoman Foxx. The gentleman yields back. We do plan to
    invite her.
        Mr. Guthrie, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for yielding. I
    appreciate the time. And this question is actually--is based on
    the testimony from Dr. Wright but, Dr. Pletnick, I would like
    for you to answer this as well, but it is based on Dr. Wright's
    testimony would be applicable I am sure. It says one in
    Kentucky, Education Commissioner Stephen Pruitt in the Kentucky
    Department of Education, found similar successes in hosting
    town halls across the State, engaging partner organizations,
    and accepting public comment in order to craft a new assessment
    of the accountability system.
        When it was all said and done, the Department received an
    input of 6,000 Kentuckians on the matter. Based on the feedback
    you received in your town halls, what were the biggest changes
    stakeholders wanted to see reflected in your State plan?
        Ms. Wright. They wanted to see more communication between
    schools and districts. They also were interested in not
    necessarily defining teacher effectiveness by years of
    experience and licensure, but by linking it more to student
    outcomes. And that we heard loud and clear. They really viewed
    an effective teacher as one that produced positive outcomes in
    children.
        And so those are two key pieces, if you will. There were
    several, but those were two that we take to heart. We are
    already in the process of designing resources that we have
    continued to push out to our districts and our schools to help
    them better engage with parents at the local level. And also we
    are revising our whole teacher evaluation system to really look
    at it as more of a professional birth system and driving that
    around linking it to our student outcomes, which is what we are
    hearing from our constituents.
        Mr. Guthrie. Okay, Dr. Pletnick, did you have similar
    experiences?
        Ms. Pletnick. We did, and there was a great deal of
    discussion around those multiple indicators and really
    redefining ready, what future-ready means. So there was
    discussion about the career and college index. There was
    discussion about what are those other significant and
    meaningful indicators that would keep us transparent and help
    our parents, our community understand the accountability system
    and what student success looks like.
        Mr. Guthrie. Okay. What kind of examples of indicators did
    you--were you ----
        Ms. Pletnick. So in the end we, as I had mentioned earlier,
    we do have college and career indicators. We do also have
    indicators around other national assessments that are utilized
    as kind of opening or gatekeepers into higher education. We do
    have advanced coursework as well.
        So there really is a very long list of indicators that are
    now considered as part of our accountability.
        Mr. Guthrie. How are you, once this is all implemented and
    moving forward, planning, like, additional town halls to try to
    continue to seek feedback for continuous improvement or what
    kind of methods are you going to try to still have stakeholder
    feedback? Continue what you are doing?
        Ms. Pletnick. I would hope that at our State level with our
    state department, and there is no reason to believe that won't
    be the case, that we will continue to look at what is in place,
    analyze the data we are collecting, and see how we can refine
    and improve moving forward.
        Ms. Wright. And that is exactly what Mississippi is
    planning on doing. We want to stay engaged with our
    stakeholders. They have invested a lot of time and energy in
    this. I have also got a very large ESSA advisory council that I
    intend to keep onboard with very diverse group of folks. So we
    have got to make sure that we are meeting the needs of our
    constituents and those are two very strong ways that we can do
    that.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you very much. And I have one for Ms.
    Nowicki. I have heard concerns from the Kentucky Department of
    Education that the department has provided that your Department
    here, the Federal Department, has provided inconsistent
    feedback to States that submitted plans early when compared one
    to another. Is this something the GAO has found to be true? And
    if so, what is the Department doing to provide consistent
    guidance?
        Ms. Nowicki. Yes, sir. So GAO, as you know, does not have a
    statutory or other role in reviewing State plans. At the time
    that we did our work there were only a couple of plans that had
    been submitted in draft for feedback. So we did not have any
    information from the Department about feedback on the plans at
    the time we did our work.
        Mr. Guthrie. Do you have a--well, okay. So you did your
    study before you would have been able to see whether there was
    inconsistent ----
        Ms. Nowicki. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Guthrie.--feedback, one plan against one and one plan
    against another? That is something that we hopefully will be
    able to look into as we move forward.
        Mr. Lovell. I mean, if I may?
        Mr. Guthrie. Yeah.
        Mr. Lovell. I can provide some thoughts on this. I mean, I
    think that there definitely were areas where feedback was
    inconsistent. I think part of it has to do with the fact that
    without the regulations, there are fewer specific rules around
    some of the vague areas in the law.
        So one area where--and a question came up earlier around
    areas that the Department could provide future guidance in. I
    think one area, as Dr. Pletnick was describing, the various
    indicators that can be selected, this is an area where the law
    gives States flexibility and even provides some examples of the
    indicators that States can use.
        A number of States are interested in really prioritizing
    college and career readiness. So they are including things like
    access and performance in advanced placement, international
    baccalaureate, dual enrollment, early college. Feedback to one
    State was somewhat negative about the State's approach to this
    and we are fearful that feedback like that without additional
    guidance as to how those things can be included in the
    accountability could put the freeze on State innovation and
    doing what we all want States to be doing.
        After all, the law specifically says that States can
    include access and performance on advanced coursework. And then
    when a State tried to do it, they got a little pushback from
    the Department.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Mr. Lovell?
        Mr. Lovell. So I think that is an area where you have some
    additional guidance.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Mr. Lovell?
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. That was helpful. My time is
    expired and I yield back. Thank you for those comments.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Yes, sir.
        Ms. Bonamici, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member
    Scott, for holding this important hearing about the
    implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act. I want to
    also join my colleagues who expressed their opinion, and I
    agree that it would be very helpful to hear from the Secretary
    and the Department as we are talking about implementation.
        I worked on education issues in my home State of Oregon at
    the local level and then in the State legislature and it
    quickly became clear that the real work needed to be done at
    the Federal level. And so at the top of my legislative agenda
    list when I joined Congress was rewriting No Child Left Behind.
    And I was thrilled to serve on the committee when we worked on
    Every Student Succeeds Act and on the conference committee and
    be there at the bill signing and it was a great day. And it was
    looking forward to implementation.
        So needless to say, I was disappointed earlier in the year
    when the majority instead of talking about which regulations
    were problematic and which they could support, instead got rid
    of all of them through the Congressional Review Act and blocked
    important regulations related to statewide accountability
    systems, consolidated plans, and data reporting.
        And then at the same time, the new administration, left
    without their implementing regulations, attempted to rush
    through revised guidance for peer reviewers, and there was a
    modified template for State plans, and new explanatory
    documents, and all of this was taking place less than a month
    before the initial deadline for submitting the plans, and after
    many States were well on their way to completing their plans.
        So I do not think we should be surprised that there has
    been uncertainty and confusion. Disappointed, yes, but not
    surprised. And in fact, without the ESSA regulations, now
    there's a conversation about which NCLB regulations are still
    in effect and what do we do about those.
        So what we really need is for the Department to play a
    reliable role in enforcing compliance with the statutory
    requirements and the law and clearing up areas of ambiguity and
    helping States take advantage of the flexibility that is such
    an important part of the law. And I know in my home State of
    Oregon, I had conversations as they were working on their plan
    about the lack of certainty.
        And they appreciate the flexibility, but do not want to go
    down a path and then months later be told that you can't go
    down that path. So Mr. Lovell, in the Department's feedback
    letter to my State of Oregon, the Department noted that
    Oregon's plan proposed to include in the students with
    disabilities subgroup, students who had previously been
    identified as students with disabilities, but have exited that
    status recently. The Department said Oregon cannot use that
    flexibility even though it was permitted in the accountability
    regulations that were finalized when they were writing their
    plan.
        So can you describe other instances where a State has
    actually lost flexibility because of Congress's action to block
    important implementing regulations?
        Mr. Lovell. Sure. So one area where we lost flexibility is
    in the ability of States to provide credit to their schools
    where kids are performing above proficiency. So we would like
    to be able to really prioritize higher thinking skills and one
    way that you could that is by providing credit for students
    that are performing above proficiency. The law very
    specifically says that kids should be--that the academic
    achievement indicator needs to measure proficiency.
        So it is questionable as to whether you can actually
    provide credit for students that are performing above
    proficient. As a result, you have some States, one in
    particular that I could think of, where they are not measuring
    proficiency at all, which is also not consistent with the law.
        Ms. Bonamici. Right.
        Mr. Lovell. So I totally agree with you, the removal of the
    regulation on top of a new template less than 30 days before
    the applications were due did cause a decent amount of
    confusion. And I think that had the regulation been in place,
    we wouldn't see some of the inconsistences that we are seeing.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And I also want to follow up, we
    have heard a lot of talk about the importance of stakeholder
    engagement and that was a really critical component of the
    Every Student Succeeds Act. And, Mr. Lovell, the Department's
    revised template does not include explicit questions about
    stakeholder engagement, as well as other important requirements
    of ESSA, including provisions related to homeless and foster
    youth.
        And I know you have reviewed the State plans. And how has
    the Department's decision to exclude those statutory
    requirements affected the development of State plans? And based
    on your review of State plans, are States actually meeting
    these requirements of the Every Student Succeeds Act?
        Mr. Lovell. So thank you very much for that question. You
    know, if it is not written, you don't whether it is happening
    or not. And so I agree that especially around some of our most
    vulnerable kids, our homeless students, and our kids in foster
    care, not having specific questions for those students means
    that we don't know what is going to be happening. That said,
    just because it is not in the template doesn't mean that those
    requirements don't exist.
        Ms. Bonamici. Right.
        Mr. Lovell. So it is very important that we still carry out
    and oversee the implementation of those provisions even if the
    questions were not asked in the template.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. More need for certainty and, Madam
    Chairwoman, as I yield back, I want to take just a moment to
    acknowledge my senior legislative assistant, Adrian Anderson,
    who has worked with me for several years on this committee on
    the Every Student Succeeds Act especially. And he is leaving at
    the end of the month to go to law school and I just want to
    thank him.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici.
        Mr. Barletta, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Barletta. Thank you. Dr. Pletnick, thank you for your
    testimony and for being here today. There are studies showing
    that poor attendance can impact academic achievement,
    ultimately leading to lower reading and math scores. We know
    that chronic absenteeism negatively affects students' success
    and this has led to some States to propose absenteeism as an
    additional accountability measure in their ESSA plans.
        We also know there is evidence that quality afterschool and
    summer learning programs are cost-effective strategies in
    increasing student attendance at all grade levels. I have seen
    this firsthand through an afterschool organization in my
    district, the SHINE Program.
        SHINE focuses on project-based learning with an emphasis on
    a STEM curriculum. It gets kids excited about learning again.
    And it is proven to work. Ninety-two percent of SHINE students
    had exceptionally good or satisfactory school attendance.
    Ninety-seven percent of students indicated they were excited
    about STEM and the numbers of students who said they would like
    to study math or science in college increased by 14 percent.
        The numbers speak for themselves. When students are excited
    about learning, they show up for class and feel personally
    invested in their education, setting themselves up for success
    down the road. Can you speak to how State ESSA plans may be
    encouraging school districts to leverage title I and title IV
    funds to provide afterschool and summer learning opportunities
    to their students, and how can districts partner with
    community-based organizations to address problems like chronic
    absenteeism?
        Ms. Pletnick. Thank you for that question. And in fact, in
    Arizona, that was one of the indicators that we wanted to
    include because we do see some of those same results that you
    have. And I can speak to my own district, but also neighboring
    districts, with our underserved populations especially, having
    those afterschool opportunities serve many purposes, but
    certainly engage students in their learning. And we, too, have
    opportunities to have coding, to have STEM, those really
    critical skills that students enjoy being a part of.
        What we have also seen is through those programs we have
    increased parent involvement because they are able to engage
    with their students in those activities. So truly by using our
    funding, title I, title IV, those types of programs we believe
    are having a positive impact academically on our underserved
    populations.
        Mr. Barletta. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my
    time, Madam Chair. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Barletta.
        Mr. Takano, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Takano. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Pletnick, well, first of all, congratulations on being
    named president-elect of the AASA. Given the fact that you must
    be familiar with that organization's position on the ESSA
    regulations rolled back under the CRA in February, I was hoping
    you would be able to explain the reversal of AASA's position.
        When the final regulations regarding accountability were
    released, your organization endorsed them, recognizing that
    your three major concerns were addressed. Then in February,
    when they were up for discussion and rollback, your
    organization supported the CRA. What changed between November
    and February and why this dramatic turnaround?
        Ms. Pletnick. Again, as an organization we truly support
    what is in the best interest of all of our schools. And
    certainly, when the regulations--I had an opportunity, in fact,
    to testify in front of a Senate committee about those
    regulations.
        And again, although there were some changes that were made
    in terms of those, we did not feel that, indeed, as a package
    there weren't some issues or concerns with those. So I think
    AASA's position was about making certain that we have the most
    flexibility and autonomy as we move forward in order to
    implement ESSA in terms of the spirit of the law.
        Mr. Takano. But, Ms. Pletnick, I still don't understand why
    the change. I mean, you have spoken in very general terms. What
    explains this reversal of position? You supported the
    regulations when they were first promulgated and then suddenly
    your organization turns around, does a reversal. They support
    the Congressional Review Act overturning those regulations.
        I mean, in my mind, the regulations allowed for the
    implementation of ESSA. What is your--I mean, I don't have a
    sense of you explaining the one. Will you give an adequate
    explanation?
        Ms. Pletnick. I apologize for not being clear. Again, I am
    speaking in broader terms in terms of when you look at ----
        Mr. Takano. Is there one specific, one or two specifics you
    can name?
        Ms. Pletnick. Again, I would ask that I be allowed to
    provide that opportunity for the record going back to AASA ----
        Mr. Takano. Okay.
        Ms. Pletnick.--in order to provide that.
        Mr. Takano. That is fine. That is fine. I would love to
    hear those specifics, read those specifics. Between both the
    President's budget proposal and the fiscal year 2018 House
    Labor Bill, more than $2 billion in funding for title II-A of
    ESEA, the largest Federal funding stream directly supporting
    teachers and school leaders in 90 percent of school districts
    will be completely eliminated, completely eliminated. In your
    role as superintendent and now being president-elect for AASA,
    how would the elimination of title II-A funding nationwide
    affect your abilities to support teachers and implement ESSA?
        Ms. Pletnick. I would share that the most critical resource
    that we have in our schools are our human resources and that is
    especially true of our teachers who touch our students every
    day. So not having that funding in order to support the
    professional development that would allow them to continue to
    ensure that we have the strategies needed to serve our
    underserved populations as well as all.
        Also monies are used in our districts to reduce class size.
    So again, an increase in class size would be an issue if title
    II was eliminated. And certainly, what we would find is that it
    would be very difficult for schools to continue programs like
    peer mentoring, other things that title II provides
    opportunities for us to do without that funding.
        Mr. Takano. So is it fair to say that your organization
    would strongly support restoration of this funding?
        Ms. Pletnick. Yes.
        Mr. Takano. Thank you. I yield back, Madam Chair.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Takano.
        Mr. Allen, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Allen. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx, and thank you for
    being here with us today. You know, ESSA was a significant
    bipartisan achievement that we initiated to empower State and
    local education decision-making while attempting to restrain
    some of the authority of the Secretary of Education,
    particularly at the local level.
        Since the law has been enacted, my State of Georgia has
    been diligent working with over 140 stakeholders to create a
    State plan. Of course, we call this the bottom-up approach
    rather than the Federal top-down approach. Georgia has gone to
    great lengths to maximize the flexibility provided by ESSA to
    support its vision of offering a holistic education to each and
    every child in the State.
        Of course, I support this vision and our State's commitment
    to engaging Georgians in this plan development. Of course, I
    look forward to working with the Department and its
    interpretation of ESSA does not exceed the intent and limits of
    the law. Our goal here is to achieve every child succeeds.
        So Dr. Wright, have you been encountering some of the same
    problems that Georgia has as far as, you know, bringing
    stakeholders together and then submitting the plan to the
    Federal Department of Education and getting pushback?
        Ms. Wright. We have not yet submitted our plan. We are
    going to be submitting in September, but we have had absolutely
    no problem gathering stakeholders. There is a lot of people out
    there that want to have their voice heard around what they
    consider most important for our children. And so that has been
    a very exciting and invigorating process actually meeting all
    across the State with our stakeholders.
        Mr. Allen. We have experienced that in Georgia as well,
    which, like you said, is a very good thing.
        Ms. Pletnick, what has your experience been as far as
    working with the Department of Education, the Federal
    Department of Education?
        Ms. Pletnick. In terms of the Federal Department ----
        Mr. Allen. Trying to get a plan approved. Where are you in
    that process and ----
        Ms. Pletnick. So Arizona has submitted their plan, so it
    would be for that submission date of September 2017. We have
    not yet received feedback on the plan.
        Mr. Allen. You have not? Okay. Do you see as far as what
    you are trying to implement, is there any lack of
    interpretation of exactly what you think the law that we passed
    says versus what you are trying to accomplish?
        Ms. Pletnick. I think the Arizona plan reflects the ESSA
    law and so we feel confident in our ability then to have that
    approved and move forward on the implementation.
        Mr. Allen. Okay. Ms. Wright, Dr. Wright, do you, I mean, do
    you feel like what you are trying to do reflects the law that
    we passed in every respect?
        Ms. Wright. Absolutely. We have had no difficulty
    whatsoever with working within the guardrails that are provided
    and with as much input as we have had, as I said, we have had
    over 7,000 pieces of feedback. I meet with the superintendents
    on a monthly basis, my advisory committee, my teacher advisory
    committee, the principal's advisory committee, we are meeting
    with those folks on a regular basis to get their input.
        But when we come together then to start the formation of
    the plan, we have not had any difficulty whatsoever in abiding
    by the guardrails.
        Mr. Allen. Well, that is great to hear because it is really
    exciting to see the efforts that are being put forth by the
    States to make sure that every student succeeds. And I want to
    thank you and congratulate you on what you are doing and I
    yield back.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Allen.
        Ms. Davis, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all of
    you for being with us today. You know, one of the things that I
    have been thinking about sitting here that has not been
    addressed so much is just the capacity right now of the
    Department of Education to work with States, to work with
    districts in looking at all of these plans.
        And, you know, so I really inquired about the number of
    vacancies. And when you look at that, 12 out of 15 nominees
    have not even been put forward or 70 percent of senior staff is
    vacant. Just thinking about which ones those are, the deputy
    secretary, there has been no nominee put forward for the
    assistant secretary for civil rights.
        We have an acting person who has been quite under fire, as
    you probably know. There is no nominee for the assistant
    secretary for elementary and secondary education, no nominee
    for the assistant secretary for planning, evaluation, and
    policy development. No nomination for the Assistant Secretary
    for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. No nominee
    for the assistant secretary for career, technical, and adult
    education, and we have talked about that in the capacity of
    districts.
        Ms. Nowicki, as the GAO representative here, how does that
    capacity affect the ability of States to move forward?
        Ms. Nowicki. Yes, ma'am. I think, you know, to the degree
    that there is no political leadership in place in any Federal
    agency, I think that does, you know, certainly play a role in
    the ability of the very talented and dedicated civil servants
    in any Federal agency. I think you are respectfully trying to
    not get out in front of, you know, where an administration may
    wish to go.
        Ms. Davis. Yeah, I think so because, as you said, they are
    dedicated, but when you are in limbo, when you are waiting for
    leadership and direction, that is a difficult thing to do. I
    don't know, Mr. Lovell, do you want to comment on that as well?
    How much of a problem is it? Maybe it is not a problem.
        Mr. Lovell. Sure. No, I think that is definitely a problem.
    When you combine lack of staff capacity with lack of clarity as
    a result of the rescission of the regulation, it really puts a
    lot of pressure on the career staff to go through these
    hundreds and hundreds of pages of material. It is complex. It
    is dense. I think that there are certainly areas that warrant
    clarification, such as when a State submits a plan and the
    question in the template requires a State to define the term
    ``consistently underperforming students.''
        And then when a State responds by saying we will identify
    low-performing students, what does that mean? Without the
    regulation in place you don't have a whole lot of guidance to
    determine what that means or what that doesn't mean, if it is
    consistent with the law or if it is not.
        So the Department's feedback basically now is serving as
    that guidance and States have to--are looking at that really
    closely to see, well, what rules do I have to follow?
        Ms. Davis. Sure, yeah. And I think you mentioned earlier
    that when it comes to some of those regulations, looking at
    whether career and tech, you mentioned that. We also talked
    earlier about the consistency about higher level thinking
    skills and where that is placed as well. In addition to that
    issue, of course, we have the budget issues that have been
    discussed. And I am wondering what the impact of deeper cuts to
    education will have on the ability of States to really serve
    our most vulnerable students.
        And one of those areas we have included a requirement in
    ESSA for 95 percent of all students in each subgroup to
    participate in annual assessment to ensure that low-performing
    students are not encouraged to be absent on test day. One
    particular example, and if we are disaggregating data, that is
    going to be a very important effort that moves forward for all
    students.
        How are States implementing this policy and how is the
    Department of Education going to oversee that given the
    situation they have?
        Mr. Lovell. So you have raised two issues, one around
    funding and one around the 95 percent test participation
    requirement, and let me address those both. So on the funding I
    want to go back to actually a comment raised by Mr. Barletta.
    He asked about how States were being able to leverage title I
    and title IV dollars for afterschool programs.
        Specifically, with regard to title IV it is pretty hard to
    leverage something that doesn't exist. Title IV has been so
    woefully underfunded that it is questionable how those dollars
    are going to be able to be used. Authorized level was $1.6
    billion. Last year $400 million was provided. That is less than
    a third of the authorized amount. So being able to use those
    dollars for things like afterschool programs is a real problem.
        The 95 percent participation rate is also a real problem.
    One place where the Department has not been inconsistent is in
    consistently not mentioning the 95 percent test participation
    requirement. There are a number of States that either simply
    say we are not going to abide by this part of the law or have
    too little, very little of an explanation as to how they are
    going to, and mum has been the word on the 95 percent test
    participation requirement.
        Ms. Davis. Any other comments that you all would like to
    make to those questions? I know we don't have any time left
    hardly.
        I think, you know, this is really an important hearing and
    I think when we look back a few years from now to sort of see
    how did it go, how was it implemented, I think what you have
    provided today, all of you, has been helpful. Thank you very
    much.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Ms. Davis.
        Mr. Mitchell, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Mitchell. Thank you, Madam Chair. Upon the passage of
    ESSA, the Wall Street Journal noted, and this is a quote that,
    ``It represented the largest devolution of Federal control to
    the States in a quarter century.'' Unfortunately, the previous
    administration apparently did not endorse that bipartisan bill.
        In fact, the previous chair and the chair in the Senate
    submitted a letter to the Secretary, 30 pages of concerns and
    objections to the proposed regulations that, frankly, were
    largely ignored. The minority here wishes to relitigate the
    discussion regarding the CRA and the elimination of the rules
    that were put forth by the previous administration.
        Let me give you some areas of concerns. The 95 percent that
    you referenced, however, the final rule referenced only four
    options and requires schools to implement a plan to address
    those. There is a whole series of things the Department did
    that overreached the intent of this Congress or the previous
    Congress and this committee.
        I wasn't here at the time, but, frankly, voted in favor of
    the CRA because I am offended by the fact that a bill is put
    forward by this House and Senate that the administration
    decided it didn't meet their expectations to do as they wanted.
    That is not the way this government works.
        So rather than spend quality time, frankly, whining about
    the CRA, we ought to get on and talk about the effect of the
    address of the needs of students of education.
        Question for you, Dr. Wright, if you could, please? Could
    you describe some of the means by which you attained what you
    consider to be quality stakeholder engagement?
        Ms. Wright. We scheduled meetings around the State and we
    scheduled them at two different times. We scheduled a total of
    15 initially, but that does not count all the other specific
    stakeholder groups that we met with. These were regional
    meetings. We scheduled our first one typically in the
    afternoon, somewhere around 3:00, so that those people that
    were available could be there.
        But we scheduled the second one in that same area typically
    starting at 6 or 6:30, so that we could ensure that our parents
    that were working would have an opportunity to get there after
    they got off work. So we made sure that we tried to cover all
    areas of the State and also in reaching out, our ESSA advisory
    group is one that has a diverse group of individuals on it.
        We met with them on a regular basis. As I have mentioned to
    you before, I have got a superintendents advisory committee
    that I meet with on a monthly basis. I meet with my teachers
    every other month. And so it gave us an opportunity to really
    hear from a lot of people.
        Mr. Mitchell. Thank you. Dr. Pletnick, as well, most
    important stakeholders, we call them stakeholders here, they
    are parents. Let us be honest about it. What did you do to make
    sure that we got effective parental engagement in this process?
    They felt that they were heard?
        Ms. Pletnick. In Arizona, there were a number of committees
    and subgroups that were established and they would have
    representatives from all stakeholders group. So certainly our
    parents are important, our business partners are important. All
    of those people were represented on the various committees. And
    in addition, we did have a survey and anyone could provide
    feedback, for instance, on our measures of success, those
    indicators that we were including.
        There were also, again, meetings that were held across the
    State, a number of meetings, where people could come and
    engage, ask questions, get clarification, and provide feedback.
        Mr. Mitchell. What percentage of your parents responded to
    the survey approximately?
        Ms. Pletnick. I honestly do not have those numbers with me,
    but I know it was open and there was good participation in it.
    I do not have exact numbers.
        Mr. Mitchell. Well, I am sure it is open. I wasn't
    questioning that. My concern is that we do everything we can to
    maximize the engagement of parents in how this is structured
    and engage them in the educational process so they have every
    reason to participate with their children. So that is critical
    and I would ask, Ms. Nowicki, if we could make sure as we look
    at, I know you have nothing to do with the operation, but going
    forward in terms of the effectiveness, that we look at the
    effectiveness of engaging not only stakeholders, teacher
    groups, those types of things, but parents in the process
    prospectively and after it is underway. Can we assure that is
    going to happen?
        Ms. Nowicki. We would be happy to work with the committee
    on any requests that they wish to submit having us look at
    stakeholder and parent involvement, absolutely.
        Mr. Mitchell. Madam Chair, I would ask that we at least
    consider that as we go forward in assessing the effectiveness
    of ESSA, that we ensure parental--look at the effectiveness of
    engagement.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Mitchell.
        Mr. Mitchell. Last question for you if we could, I guess is
    that it would be about the last stage of ESSA is identify and
    assist school districts that are low performers. Michigan has
    some legendary low-performing school districts, unfortunately.
    A variety of things have been done to try to address that.
        My question for you would be, also, Ms. Nowicki, is there a
    process by which you are going to assess the effectiveness?
    Have you identified, one, whether the plans are effective at
    addressing low-performing school districts?
        Ms. Nowicki. Yes, sir. I think when we have an opportunity
    to see the monitoring protocols that the Department eventually
    develops, that is one of the things that we would be interested
    in looking at how they are approaching that.
        Mr. Mitchell. I would be curious if the other two
    educational witnesses, Dr. Pletnick and Dr. Wright, if we get
    any feedback just of how you are going to monitor that because
    it seems to be a plaguing problem in some States. Clearly it is
    in Michigan, and we need to not only talk about what we are--
    how we are assessing them, but how we are supporting them and
    are we getting improvements or are we just spinning our wheels
    and students are being lost?
        Ms. Wright. Well, actually, it is one of the goals in our
    strategic plan that all schools and all districts will be rated
    C or higher. And so our focus to do that, we have an A through
    F system, was to identify the lowest performing schools. We are
    going to be using subgroup data to do that.
        We have also got a protocol in place that we have required
    all of our low-performing schools to come in for a personal
    interview, which includes their board members, their
    principals, et cetera. And then go through the protocol with
    them about what we are going to be monitoring and how
    frequently.
        The bottom line for me as the State superintendent is, are
    student outcomes improving?
        Mr. Mitchell. That is right.
        Ms. Wright. And that is where we are coming from.
        Mr. Mitchell. Thank you and I yield back. Thank you for
    your patience.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Mitchell.
        Dr. Pletnick, if you could respond to Mr. Mitchell in
    writing, I would appreciate it.
        Mr. Grijalva, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Madam Chair. Dr. Pletnick,
    welcome, and I am glad you are here. I want to talk--ask some
    questions about some mitigating factors in terms of how the
    State plan is approved, when it is approved and the
    implementation of ESSA in Arizona in the public school
    districts.
        Mitigating plans points being, you know, Arizona, along
    with Mississippi, are at the five lowest States in terms of per
    people expenditures to the public schools; Arizona is about
    $3,300 under the national average. So that lack of State
    support in terms of public instruction is a constant in
    Arizona.
        It has been litigated. It has been referendumed. It
    continues to happen yearly at the State level. But now let me
    ask, so that is a constant. And you couple that with the cuts
    that are being proposed in the education budget and that is an
    additional layer of lack of support upon the public schools in
    Arizona and across the country.
        But then you have also the threat of public funds going to
    private school vouchers, for-profit charter schools; they are
    very real now given President Trump and Secretary Devos'
    singular focus on that concept. Under the repealed regulation
    charter schools are going to be held accountable through an
    authorizer's reporting. Now, without that regulation that has
    been repealed, they will be even less accountable because of
    that.
        And the proliferation of for-profit charter schools in
    Arizona, charter schools in general, don't you think that
    regulatory requirement would help to improve the transparency
    of the State's charter sector, Doctor?
        Ms. Pletnick. So what I would say is I truly do believe in
    accountability. So I do believe if any school system receives
    Federal or State funding that they should be held to the same
    accountability as every other because I think that is about
    transparency.
        Mr. Grijalva. And, you know, I also mentioned the
    Affordable Care Act, $26 million goes to the State of Arizona
    for Medicaid to work with children with disabilities. That is
    $26 million that if the repeal scenario is what we are talking
    about now, then that would be, again, another layer of
    nonsupport that would not be there particularly for disabled
    kids.
        During the discussion, I am assuming that the discussion of
    a national voucher tax credit proposal, probably using a tax
    reform vehicle probably, that is modeled after State programs
    like the one we have in Arizona, do you feel that Arizona's
    voucher program is indeed helping students? And would you
    recommend as a national policy that we model a national policy
    after Arizona's voucher program?
        Ms. Pletnick. I am here at the invitation of Chairperson
    Foxx to speak on ESSA implementation. And so I am not as
    prepared for this hearing to speak to that. Certainly, I could
    provide additional information regarding it, but there is
    certainly an impact when we have expansion of those programs.
    And we know that at the State level.
        Mr. Grijalva. And if it is public money that is being
    diverted to those programs, as a consequence it is less another
    layer of nonsupport from the public schools in Arizona.
        Ms. Pletnick. There is an impact on it.
        Mr. Grijalva. So we have those mitigating factors. Where is
    the State plan at this point? Waiting for review? What is the
    story on that?
        Ms. Pletnick. Yes. It was submitted so that it was
    submitted I believe in May, which would make it for that
    deadline in September for review.
        Mr. Grijalva. And you heard the complaints, I am sure. Many
    parents, stakeholders, educational groups relative to the fact
    that the access and the lack of real dialogue in terms of what
    that plan was going to be that was, I think, essentially run
    out of the governor's office, that there was some opposition
    and discomfort with the way the plan was put together, correct?
        Ms. Pletnick. So again, I think that there are components
    in the plan, as I had shared. I do not think that it is a
    perfect plan. So I believe there needs to be continued dialogue
    as we look at what we need to do to continue to drive
    improvement, especially for our underserved populations in
    Arizona.
        Mr. Grijalva. And thank you very much. I appreciate that.
    But without resources, asking public school systems to meet any
    benchmark and we see eroding support at the State level, at the
    national level, and at all levels for our public schools, I
    think you are putting not only the school system in a bad
    place. You are putting parents in a bad place and you are
    jeopardizing a lot of children. And with that, I yield back.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Grijalva.
        Mr. Smucker, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Smucker. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        Dr. Wright, in your testimony you mention the opportunities
    to expand career and technical education to the classrooms of
    our elementary and secondary students. And I know there has
    been some discussion about this. I apologize if it is a
    duplicate question.
        But, you know, it is a top priority of this committee and a
    top priority of mine as well. Pennsylvania is working on
    developing their own State plan in response to ESSA and just
    wonder what ideas you may have for Pennsylvania and other
    States to integrate career and technical education into those
    plans.
        Ms. Wright. Well, that is one thing that we have been very
    proud of is working with our businesses around the State. We
    serve on the State's Workforce Investment Board and I think
    having a seat at the table, I think, has a very powerful
    reality for us. We then separate the State into the local
    workforce boards and have been working directly with them.
        They have been very receptive to our work. We are intending
    to create, as I said earlier, those CTE plans in high school,
    but we are also looking to see how early we can start some of
    these plans in middle school because I think some of our
    children, we realize that not everybody wants to go to college.
        But everybody deserves the right to have a wonderful job as
    soon as they, you know, walk across our stage. And so our job
    is to ensure that all of our children are career and college
    ready. We are also redoing our diploma options, to be honest
    with you. We have got one that is going to have a CTE
    endorsement and that is going to be a nationally recognized
    endorsement that children will be able to go right to work if
    that is what they so choose.
        But I think the key for us is the developing in our economy
    and that the way to do that is to ensure that we have got a
    strong workforce out there that can do that. And the children
    that are in our classrooms are the ones that are going--we are
    going to be depending on. So we have got to ensure that they
    have got the academic skills to do that, but they also have to
    have the career and technical skills to do that as well.
        Mr. Smucker. You mentioned a national endorsement? What is
    that?
        Ms. Wright. Yeah. We are looking at the number of national
    endorsements that students can have, certifications that they
    can have. We have got a large number of different manufacturing
    companies. Toyota has a big presence. Nissan has a big
    presence. Ingalls Shipbuilding has a presence. The Stennis
    Space Center has a big presence.
        So we have got a huge medical area as well, as well as some
    of the smaller businesses that are looking for people to come
    to their employment. As I said earlier, about 65 percent of the
    jobs that are available are children that are going to need
    middle schools.
        Mr. Smucker. So that certification or endorsement would be
    part of their diploma as well?
        Ms. Wright. Yes.
        Mr. Smucker. Okay.
        Ms. Wright. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Smucker. Interesting idea. Next question. This would be
    for both Dr. Wright and Dr. Pletnick. Yesterday I had the honor
    of welcoming Chairwoman Foxx to my district and we had a
    roundtable discussion with education leaders from across the
    district and industry stakeholders as well. And a topic came up
    that I have heard a lot about in the State senate in my State,
    and chair of the education committee.
        I am just curious what your States are doing in regards to
    standardized testing. Superintendents who were there and who
    have heard from the past few years have felt that there has
    been sort of an undue or too much emphasis, I guess, on having
    all students achieve a certain standard as opposed to, I think
    today we have technology or we have education available to
    provide more individualized learning to meet a student exactly
    where they are, and help all students achieve to their full
    potential.
        So I guess I am curious how both of your States are
    responding to that?
        Ms. Wright. Well, in Mississippi, we have established and
    adopted a set of very rigorous standards pre-K through grade
    12. And I think we owe it to our parents and our community to
    be very transparent about what our children should know and be
    able to do by the time they leave 12th grade. It is going to be
    they depend on us each and every day to ensure that their
    children are getting what they deserve.
        And so I feel very strongly that you have got to have a
    strong set of standards in place that are going to enable
    children to be successful when they leave us. And so that is
    how--that is the approach that we have and that is the approach
    that we are sticking to.
        Mr. Smucker. Dr. Pletnick, could you respond?
        Ms. Pletnick. So in Arizona, we do have what is called the
    Arizona Merit and that is aligned to our standards. Our
    standards, too, are very rigorous, but as a superintendent, I
    also believe that there are many other skills and dispositions
    that we have to ensure students have before they leave us if
    they are to be future ready.
        I think about the fact that I really didn't have to think
    about coding when I was in elementary, yet that is a skill that
    is a future-ready skill. When we talk about the four Cs,
    communication and critical thinking, all of those things, so I
    think there have to be multiple measures and that is what we
    have worked towards in Arizona in terms of our CC&R indicators.
        So one test can give us some feedback, but we need multiple
    indicators to get the true picture of student success and
    school success.
        Mr. Smucker. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Smucker.
        Ms. Blunt Rochester, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and also
    Ranking Member Scott, and also thank you to the panel. I was
    really pleased to hear that our chairwoman has invited
    Secretary Devos to our committee. Education and ESSA
    implementation is probably one of the things that I have heard
    most from Delawareans, whether it is the champions in civil
    rights that I talk to, those people who are interested in
    lifting people out of poverty, to the corporations in my State
    which we have many, and all of the small businesses.
        This is probably one of the top issues. And so my question,
    I first want to start with Ms. Pletnick. You stated in your
    testimony that, ``Consistency in how ESSA is interpreted and
    regulated is critical. Uncertainty created by shifting
    interpretations of the ESSA law continues to be a concern.''
        Given that there is currently no regulatory scheme for ESSA
    interpretation, what position do you think that this puts
    States in developing and implementing their plans?
        Ms. Pletnick. So I believe in whether we are talking at the
    Federal level, we are talking at the State level, again, it is
    important to have that consistent feedback because then, in
    turn, we can move on with the implementation of ESSA, and make
    certain that we are directing all our efforts to that
    implementation, and checking those outcomes.
        So it is critical as we move forward that we make certain
    that we know exactly what our targets are, that we can get to
    work, and get the work done. So my concern is really about
    consistency across the board at all levels.
        Ms. Blunt Rochester. Across the board. I want to follow
    that up and, Mr. Lovell, if you could also join in. What impact
    would the lack of regulation have on underserved populations?
        Mr. Lovell. That is a monumentally important question. The
    concern is that the lack of the regulation will result in too
    few children being identified and then receiving the support
    that they need to succeed. We want to make sure that States,
    when they are proposing to identify students for additional
    support, that while we want to use all the indicators in the
    system to support them, we don't want them to make--we want to
    make sure that kids don't have to fail on everything before
    they are actually identified.
        I think that is a major concern considering that a few
    States have been very clear that they want to look at are kids
    performing on grade level, and if they are not, then let us do
    something about that. The Department has pushed back on that a
    little bit and that is very unfortunate because, frankly, if
    students are not performing at grade level, or if they are not
    graduating, I don't need to know much else to know that
    something needs to happen.
        I need to know a lot more to know what to do about it, but
    I don't need to know a lot more to know that there is a
    problem. And then back to your, again, question around the
    regulations.
        That, you know, the role of the regulation is to provide a
    lot of clarification and there was a comment earlier around the
    95 percent requirement and whether the regulation is being
    overly prescriptive. Four options were presented.
        One of those options in the regulation around the 95
    percent was essentially States choose your own adventure. Come
    up with your own option. So to say that it was only four
    options is actually not entirely the case.
        And as a result, we have States when it comes to how are
    they going to be implementing this very important provision of
    the law, either not being clear about it or not doing it at
    all.
        Ms. Blunt Rochester. You know, I really want to touch a
    little bit on both regulation and also on capacity. We were
    talking about undersecretaries and the positions not being
    filled. I had the opportunity in Delaware to serve as a deputy
    secretary of health and social services.
        And while I--I was also secretary of labor, and secretaries
    do have an important role. They are external. They are
    visionary and all of that. But a lot of the detail gets done at
    that undersecretary level. A lot of the administrative things,
    a lot of the--there is so much importance also to that level.
        And so my concern about filling positions is I share Ms.
    Davis' concern. Also about regulations, I guess, having come
    from State government, I believe there is a place for
    regulations. Can we overregulate things? Yes. But there is a
    real place and I think what we are hearing from all of your
    testimony across the board is consistency, clarity--that helps
    people to be able to do their jobs better. It helps us to be
    able to get better outcomes.
        So I have no more questions. I am just going to yield the
    balance of my time.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much, Ms. Blunt Rochester.
        Mr. Grothman, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Grothman. Thank you. I guess I will ask a question to
    either Dr. Pletnick or Dr. Wright, who is best able to answer
    it. Could you first of all just give us a general overview? I
    mean, we wanted to get around, we passed Student Success Act,
    get around this top-down approach to how you run your schools.
    Do you feel we have succeeded in that? Are you happy with that
    or would you like further things done alone those lines? We
    will start with Dr. Pletnick.
        Ms. Pletnick. As I had shared earlier, I think there are
    still some things even at our State level that were legislation
    that was tied more closely to the No Child Left Behind era than
    to what currently is in place with ESSA law.
        So I think there is still room for improvement and we need
    to work on that. Teacher evaluation is an example of that, some
    other pieces. So, yes, ESSA has provided us with some of that
    autonomy and flexibility, but at the State level, I think we
    still have some things that we will need to do.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. Are you satisfied with what you are
    getting out of Washington, though?
        Ms. Pletnick. Yes. Again, I will tell you that we have
    submitted our plan. We have not gotten any feedback on that
    plan at this point.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. Same question for you, Dr. Wright.
        Ms. Wright. Yeah, I think the State's role, at least in
    Mississippi, is, you know, setting the long-term goals per
    subgroup area so that we know what we want for our children 10
    years out. But I think it is really the local districts and the
    local schools that need to be developing their own respective
    plans on how they meet the needs of their individual children.
        I wouldn't presume to know. I have got 144 districts, all
    the needs of that, so I trust my superintendents and the
    principals and the teachers of that school.
        Mr. Grothman. You are satisfied with the Student Success
    Act, though?
        Ms. Wright. Yes.
        Mr. Grothman. And we say we were pushing things out.
        Ms. Wright. Yes, I am, very much so.
        Mr. Grothman. You were saying so. Okay. A little while ago,
    you kind of were talking very positively about kind of more
    preschool. Have you ever read anything indicating the preschool
    is not necessarily much of a benefit?
        Ms. Wright. No, quite to the contrary. Preschool, there is
    too much research out there now for us to not be paying
    attention to our three- and four-year-olds. Quite honestly, we
    are going to be starting to look to how can we start helping
    children, you know, birth through grade three. I think that has
    been one of the things that we have been pushing out across our
    district is the amount of research that is being conducted
    recently and the long-term effects, even in Mississippi, that
    we can verify by research that has been done by Mississippi
    State on Mississippi children.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. You have never read anything to the
    contrary to that? Never read anything ----
        Ms. Wright. Long time ago, but not within the past I would
    say 5 years. Not to my knowledge.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. Next question. One of the metrics that
    is supposed to show a quality school--well, I will go to this
    one. What is an underserved population? Mr. Lovell just used
    that as a phrase, but could anybody describe what you consider
    an underserved population?
        Mr. Lovell. Well, the law stipulates that States are
    supposed to disaggregate data for accountability and reporting
    purposes for major racial and ethnic groups, for English
    learners, for low-income students, and for students with
    disabilities. So those are the categories of students that,
    generally speaking, when we speak to underserved populations
    that we are referring to.
        Mr. Grothman. Does underserved mean lack of money? Does it
    just mean poor outcomes? Is ----
        Mr. Lovell. Well, it also refers really to both when you
    look at schools that predominantly serve those populations of
    students specifically ----
        Mr. Grothman. Sometimes in Wisconsin, some of the most
    underperforming districts have the most money and that is why I
    wondered what you meant by underserved.
        Mr. Lovell. Well, so I think that we would present data
    that would suggest otherwise.
        Mr. Grothman. Nationwide or ----
        Mr. Lovell. Oh, sure, across the country.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. Okay. Final question. Sometimes one
    metric used to measure a quality school district is graduation
    rates. I know graduation rates are overall up. On the other
    hand, a lot of times you hear from employers today, people who
    teach in secondary education that they feel the kids aren't
    doing as well or as prepared as they used to be. Could you
    comment, say, Ms. Nowicki, on the contradiction there? Is it
    possible we are lowering the standards on what it takes to
    graduate? Or how can graduation rates be up, but employers and
    people in secondary education sometimes feel the kids
    graduating aren't doing as well?
        Ms. Nowicki. GAO has not done any recent work around
    graduation rates, so I can't comment from that perspective. I
    know that the Department of Education's IG has done some work
    looking at graduation rate statistics and what they mean and
    don't mean in particular States.
        Mr. Lovell. So our organization has looked at this, and
    actually, we are going to be releasing a report in the next few
    weeks because that contradiction definitely exists. And States
    in their ESSA plans have the opportunity to address this by
    including items in their accountability system that prioritize
    not just that you get a diploma, but that you get a diploma
    that really represents that you know something.
        And to your questions earlier around early childhood, while
    I haven't seen anything that shows that early childhood is
    ineffective or isn't necessary, I have read research that shows
    that early childhood on its own is insufficient.
        So in other words, you can't--early childhood is not an
    inoculation. You have to continue to invest and support kids
    throughout their development.
        Mr. Grothman. Yeah, I would hope Dr. Wright would Google
    early childhood education and criticism and she will have no
    problem finding other things. Thanks much.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Grothman.
        Dr. Adams, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member
    Scott, for convening this hearing, and thank you to those of
    you who testified today. I want to reemphasize one of the main
    points that Mr. Lovell mentioned in his testimony that ESSA is,
    at heart, a civil rights law.
        The Federal Government has an important role to play in
    ensuring equity in education for our children. And while States
    have wide discretion and flexibility to determine how success
    is measured, the Federal Government sets the standard for
    success.
        So it is especially true in historically underprivileged
    groups. So Mr. Lovell, States have the discretion to create and
    define the metric used for consistent underperformers. In your
    analysis of State ESSA plans, how are States defining
    consistently underperforming, and do you think this equity
    guardrail in the law is being executed as intended to ensure
    schools struggling to meet the needs of underserved students
    are identified and supported to improve?
        Mr. Lovell. Thanks very much for your question. I think
    this is one of the most important provisions in the law. If we
    are not identifying kids who are continually underperforming,
    then what are we here for? And if we are not supporting them,
    then we are certainly not doing our jobs.
        A number of States have proposed ways to do this that
    ensure that if you are--if a student is not performing at grade
    level in math or reading, or if there are low graduation rates,
    those children are identified and something will happen as a
    result of it. They will receive some sort of support.
        Unfortunately, a number of States are also putting together
    these sort of indexes where you are including a whole bunch of
    different factors to determine whether a kid is low performing
    or not. And what we are concerned about is that if you are
    performing well in one area, that might mask if you are
    performing less well in another area.
        And so when you combine all these things together, you come
    up with not a whole lot that is actually usable. So we want to
    be sure that States have the flexibility to, as I believe it is
    being proposed in Mississippi, to look at if you are performing
    at grade level in math or reading. If you are not, then you
    should be able to receive targeted support.
        You don't have to--you need to look at each indicator in
    the system, but you don't have to fail on all of them in order
    to receive support.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you.
        Dr. Wright, you mentioned in your testimony that
    Mississippi is including students' subgroup performance in
    identifying schools for support and improvement. And I know
    that your plan is only in draft form, but how is Mississippi
    planning to measure subgroup performance and factor subgroup
    performance into the school's rating?
        Ms. Wright. So we have the data that we collect on our
    statewide assessment that we have just redone grades three
    through eight and then, once again, in high school. Those data
    will be disaggregated by subgroup and then monitored at not
    only at the State level, but at the district level and at the
    school level.
        So we will be able to track that data over time to
    determine whether or not those subgroups of children are
    continuing to underperform or are making progress.
        Ms. Adams. Okay, thank you very much.
        Madam Chair, I yield back.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you.
        Mr. Garrett, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Garrett. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        A wiser man than me said, probably 35 years ago, the nine
    most frightening words in the English language are, ``I am from
    the government and I am here to help.'' I might amend that to
    10 words and submit that I am from the Federal Government and I
    am here to help, pretty frightening in their own right.
        ESEA is a 50-year-old precursor to ESSA and arose during
    the Johnson administration along with the war on poverty. And
    we have seen as Federal dollars spent on local education rose,
    a reverse correlation in the performance of United States
    students versus students across the globe.
        And candidly, from a State where we rank anywhere between
    fourth and sixth as it relates to educational outcomes of the
    50 States on a regular basis, I wonder why we are competing
    against 49 other States as opposed to a world of other nations.
    Because that is the playing field upon which our children will
    ultimately compete.
        It is often said that the road to hell is paved with good
    intentions and I have seen all too often people attack
    aspirants to serve in political capacities based on what
    program they supported or didn't support. If you don't support
    this, you don't care, or if you don't support this, you don't
    like children. If you don't support this, you are not
    interested in finding solutions to poverty and expanding
    opportunity. It is all horse feathers.
        What we need to be focused on as opposed to intentions is
    outcomes, results, what happens. And I will tell you speaking
    with frustration that vents back to 6, 7 years ago, as I was
    serving in the State legislature, where we identify failing
    schools and leave students in these failing schools without an
    option for the parents who lack the socioeconomic and financial
    wherewithal to vote with their feet, we doom those children to
    inferior outcomes and inferior educational opportunity.
        If you ask me whether I believe in nature or nurture, I
    will tell you I believe in nurture every single time and that
    the color of a young person's skin or the job of their parents
    isn't so much a precursor on their success as to what they are
    exposed to. But we run into the institutional educational
    monopoly all the time as we try to create escape hatches for
    students in places, like the five, whopping five, schools that
    we had the courage to identify as failing in Virginia, to find
    a way out for these young people who have just as much
    fundamental entitlement to the single birthright of
    Americanship, and that is opportunity as every other kid.
        I am sick of watching kids fail based on their ZIP Code.
    But Jefferson said wisely, and I will paraphrase, the
    government closest to home is most effective, most accountable,
    and governs best.
        My colleague from Oregon states that she thinks the
    solution to our educational problems has to be at the Federal
    level. And then in the same paragraph lamented that ESSA
    prevented Oregon from including particular standards that she
    felt might help best effect good outcomes for students in
    Oregon. Dr. Pletnick, do smart people work with you?
        Ms. Pletnick. I have very intelligent people working with
    me.
        Mr. Garrett. And they are professional and trained people?
        Ms. Pletnick. Yes, they are.
        Mr. Garrett. And they care, they care about the children
    and the district that you serve?
        Ms. Pletnick. They do.
        Mr. Garrett. And you are the superintendent, correct?
        Ms. Pletnick. I am.
        Mr. Garrett. How many students does your district have?
        Ms. Pletnick. Approximately 25,000.
        Mr. Garrett. And can you name one or two of those kids who
    might have special needs who you are trying to overcome the
    challenges yourself?
        Ms. Pletnick. I could, but I will not confirm ----
        Mr. Garrett. I am not asking you to, but you could. Yeah,
    right, but nobody in this room could, right? You could and you
    care, and you have smart people, and we don't have a monopoly
    on good ideas. And you want what? What is best for the outcomes
    for the students that you serve, is that correct?
        Ms. Pletnick. Absolutely.
        Mr. Garrett. Okay. Ms. Nowicki, you are familiar with the
    United States student ranks versus their global peers as it
    relates to academic performance in ratings like math and
    science? Are you familiar with the historical data?
        Ms. Nowicki. Not specifically.
        Mr. Garrett. Okay. Are you familiar with how we were doing
    say in 1950, 1960, 1970 versus 1990, 2000, 2010 versus our
    global peers?
        Ms. Nowicki. Are you talking about the PISA ratings?
        Mr. Garrett. And surveys of outcomes educationally. I would
    submit by way of brevity, because I have a minute and 9
    seconds, that as we have spent more, we have actually gone down
    versus the competition. Now, I am not arguing against spending
    more. Let me be clear. We need to spend money on education. But
    I got an idea that folks in a county in Arizona and the State
    of Mississippi know better what is needed.
        Dr. Wright, we talked about CTE. Is it good in CTE to align
    the training that we give students with the needs of the job
    providers in the communities?
        Ms. Wright. Absolutely.
        Mr. Garrett. Okay. And who knows better the needs of the
    job providers in Tupelo or Biloxi, the people in Tupelo or
    Biloxi, the people in Jackson, or the people in Washington,
    D.C.?
        Ms. Wright. The people in Tupelo and Biloxi.
        Mr. Garrett. Correct, thank you. I mean, I just am a little
    biased here. And so I guess what I am driving at here is that
    this is great and I think ESSA is a step in the right
    direction. It doesn't have--like anything from Washington, it
    has warts and pimples, but you are good, smart people who give
    a damn, pardon me, about the outcomes for the children in your
    communities. And the way we arrive at the best solutions is by
    letting loose 50 laboratories for democracy and finding out
    what works. And our role, since we have already co-opted so
    much of the resources at the Federal level, should be to power
    those down to States and localities, would you agree, to let
    you all do what you think works best, and then let others fall
    in on the plans that succeed? Thank you. That is rhetorical. I
    am out of time.
        Chairwoman Foxx. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Garrett. Hey, I was only 12 seconds over, Madam Chair.
    That is a new record.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Mr. DeSaulnier, you are recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank
    you for having this hearing.
        And, Mr. Lovell, I am always taken when I look at the
    achievement gap by a comment I heard by a Stanford researcher,
    Linda Darling, some years--well, it wasn't that long ago, a few
    years ago, that if we had just continued to do what we knew is
    the right things to invest in 30 years ago for the past 30
    years, we wouldn't have an achievement gap.
        So when we look at the difficulties in people, whether they
    are in Mississippi or in Concord, California, where I am from,
    in achievement gap, could you talk to that a little bit about
    where accountability comes? That, yes, we want local
    jurisdictions to decide, but, on the other hand, there is a
    benefit to this research that applies across all 50 counties
    and the Federal Government affording that to local communities
    so they can be informed on what is happening around the
    country. And why it is important for consistency that there is
    some accountability there .
        Mr. Lovell. Thank you very much for the question. I
    actually think that Chairwoman Foxx said it very well at the
    beginning of this hearing when saying that ESSA provides a
    balance between accountability and autonomy. And the reality is
    that everyone needs to have a role in this and there is a
    Federal role to be played. So ESSA is a civil rights law and
    what ESSA does is provide a broad framework for the
    accountability and ensures that those kids who have the least
    have a shot of success.
        So it also needs, I think, to be well understood that we
    have seen improvements in educational outcomes over the last
    decade. Look at the graduation rates as an example. Back in
    2000, 2001, if you were going to draw a line between the
    graduation rate in 2000 and 2007/8, basically you have got a
    straight line.
        But then in 2008, something happened. The U.S. Department
    of Education under President George W. Bush issued a regulation
    around graduation rate accountability because apples were not
    being compared to apples across States if you compared
    graduation rate calculations. One State was using one
    calculation, another State was using another.
        After the Federal Government issued the regulation in 2008,
    you saw something pretty remarkable happen. Graduation rates
    started increasing. As a result, since 2000, 2.8 million more
    kids have graduated. That is a big deal. It is a big deal for
    them and it is a big deal for the Nation's economy considering
    that by 2020, two-thirds of jobs are going to require at least
    some postsecondary education and a high school diploma is the
    first step to getting there.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. And the second part of my questions are
    coming from the Bay Area and I appreciate the fact that we had
    really robust field hearings that the chairwoman and the
    ranking member were part of, and I was lucky enough to be part
    of those. But particularly, as you will remember, Madam Chair,
    the last part of that field hearing at Stanford University, the
    Harvard of the West Coast, I might add, to the Ranking Member,
    I get this all the time in the Bay Area, is from tech people.
        We have our challenges on housing and transportation. But
    the thing that comes up all the time from employers is we need
    to provide a workforce for global economy that is changing at
    warp speed. So accountability is a big part in the business
    sector. And again, a lot of these companies will move. I don't
    want them to move from the Bay Area, but they are.
        But one of the things that determines where they are moving
    are things like housing costs, but it is also the education
    system. So while it is important, I think, and I very much
    support local control and what Dr. Wright, you have said, there
    are things that in this economy require, I think, the Federal
    Government and the business community to inform us at a local
    level this is what we are looking for, and this is what we have
    to invest in. So I will let any of you respond to that.
        And I think the urgency to that is really the predominant
    thing for me is how do we maintain our preeminence in
    innovation in this country and I'll say specifically for
    Northern California? The answer to that is investing in not
    just in education, but doing it smartly, but doing it in a way
    that is informed given how quickly the workforce is changing
    and the demands on that workforce.
        So Mr. Lovell, if you could start any of the other ----
        Mr. Lovell. No, I would be happy to. You know, ESSA asserts
    that when there is low-performing schools or low-performing
    students something has to happen. It doesn't prescribe what
    happens and there is the balance. The Federal Government
    ensures that we are taking care of our lowest-performing kids
    and leaves it to States and to districts and to schools and to
    my colleagues to my right and my left as to how to do that
    best. Because the Federal Government can't do that, but what
    the Federal Government can do is ensure that we are all playing
    by the same rules. And I also say that we see a lot of really
    effective innovation taking place at the local level and pick
    on California in a positive way in this regard.
        CTE has come up on a number of occasions. And in
    California, through the Linked Learning Initiative there is a
    lot of really great work going on to integrate rigorous
    academics with CTE. And there is an important Federal role to
    play and this committee has played that role by reauthorizing
    the Carl Perkins Career and Technical Education Act. So there
    is a role for everyone to play, but I appreciate you raising
    this need to really acknowledge that the Federal role here is
    important.
        It doesn't displace the local role, but it is two different
    roles. One is to ensure that our lowest-performing kids are
    being supported when they need it, and then the State and local
    role is to actually implement that.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Lovell.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. DeSaulnier.
        Mr. Scott, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Nowicki, did the GAO conduct a compliance review on
    plan components or policy decisions made by States, like Ohio
    or California, or did GAO make any value judgments concerning
    the plan development or did you just make an observation of
    those plans?
        Ms. Nowicki. It was just an observation of those plans,
    sir. We did not make a compliance judgment.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you. And we heard complaints from some
    representatives of civil rights groups that flexibility could
    result in an abuse of, really, equity compliance. Your plan
    didn't comment on equity as I understand it. Did you contact
    representatives of parents, State-level advocates, advocates of
    children with disabilities, or civil rights groups?
        Ms. Nowicki. Generally not for this work, sir. We were
    primarily engaged with national stakeholder groups who were
    working with States.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you.
        Mr. Lovell, the whole point of ESEA and ESSA is to
    eliminate achievement gaps providing equal educational
    opportunities. Can you, you have kind of gone around this, but
    can you show how subgroups so far have addressed equity?
        Mr. Lovell. How States have addressed equity?
        Mr. Scott. Yeah, within terms of ----
        Mr. Lovell. The separate accountability? Thank you for the
    question. So there is a spectrum, right? So you have got some
    States that, as I have said, are looking at are students
    performing at grade level? And if they are, let us do something
    about it. You have some States that will be looking at a whole
    bunch of different indicators. And as I have said, I fear that
    in doing that, what we will be doing is providing the chance
    for low achievement to be masked by higher achievement.
        So if you say--so actually to the conversation that was
    taking place earlier around graduation rates, you can have a
    high graduation rate, which means that kids are actually
    getting a diploma, but they may not be reading or doing math at
    grade level. Right? If you combine those two things together,
    then you are not getting the right read on what is happening in
    the school.
        Another thing that I fear is happening with regard to the
    role of subgroups in these plans is that when States have
    report cards, so if your school gets an A, B, C, D, F, they are
    not adequately incorporating the performance of each group
    within their grades. So you can have a high letter grade, but
    you can have low performance for historically underserved kids.
        Mr. Scott. And if you have a subgroup that is not doing
    well in the school system, what support do members of those
    subgroups get in schools that are otherwise doing well?
        Mr. Lovell. Well, it is really up to the States, the
    districts, and the schools to determine that. The law
    stipulates that they are to receive evidence-based
    intervention, but the schools, the districts, and the States
    will determine what those interventions are.
        Mr. Scott. And, well, how is that a credible plan? Who
    decides whether there is a credible strategy to address
    achievement gaps?
        Mr. Lovell. Well, that is a great question. The template
    that's distributed by the Department of Education and the
    questions around school improvement, there really aren't a lot
    of questions. And so what is really going to be happening is
    fairly unclear.
        Mr. Scott. Why is the 95 percent testing rule important?
        Mr. Lovell. For a few reasons. One, we have to have
    accurate data. And two, we want to make sure that low-
    performing kids are not intentionally or unintentionally
    encouraged to not be present on test day.
        Mr. Scott. And what happens if you don't get 95 percent
    tested? What happens to the data?
        Mr. Lovell. The data becomes unreliable.
        Mr. Scott. And, Dr. Wright, you indicated that your
    credentials are nationally recognized. What happened, what is
    wrong with credentials that are not nationally recognized?
        Ms. Wright. There may be some CTE. I assume you are
    referring to the CTE programs. I think some of our local
    businesses, those CTE programs are going to be developed
    specifically for them, so they may not be a national
    credential. Having the CTE endorsement on the diploma is a
    student's option. And so they can either go for the traditional
    diploma or to go for a CTE endorsement on their diploma. That
    is their option, but the local businesses may not have a
    national certification. But they will have a certification that
    will allow them to assume a job in the local business.
        Mr. Scott. But what is the value of the national
    certification?
        Ms. Wright. They can go anywhere in the United States. I
    mean, I think that is the power of having national
    certification is that children are mobile and families are
    mobile. So this will allow them to really look around the
    Nation to see where their certification could earn them, say,
    the most money or where their family wants to move to.
        Mr. Lovell. And if I could run an example of this really
    quickly? There is the National Academy Foundation. Students
    that participate in a NAF academy and they get the NAF track
    certification, they are graduating from high school with their
    diploma. They get the NAF track certification and 13 companies,
    and big companies like AT&T, Cisco, JP Morgan Chase, give those
    students preferential hiring treatment when they are done with
    postsecondary education.
        So there are ways that we can really incentivize
    integration of CTE in academics and make sure that when kids
    are graduating, they are graduating with something that will
    help them down the road.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much, Mr. Scott.
        It is now my turn to ask questions of the panels. Dr.
    Wright, you talk about how Mississippi's State plan is related
    to the State board's strategic plan in Mississippi.
        Ms. Wright. Yes, ma'am.
        Chairwoman Foxx. And we hope that ESSA allows you the
    flexibility to integrate the plan you are developing under ESSA
    with the work the State is already doing. Do you and your
    department, the State board, and other stakeholders around the
    State see that integration as possible and desirable? Or is
    your ESSA work something that is happening separate from the
    other reform work going on in the State?
        Ms. Wright. That is a great question. And we look at it as
    very much integrated. We feel very strongly that our State's
    strategic plan is a strong one and we looked at ESSA as a way
    to strengthen that plan and refine that plan, and give us the
    opportunity to add other components that we may not have had in
    that. But that has been our message right from the very
    beginning.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Dr. Pletnick, could you respond to that
    same question in terms of what is happening in Arizona?
        Ms. Pletnick. As a matter of fact, there was an effort,
    again, to establish goals at our State level. And I had the
    privilege of serving on the long-term goal committee that
    established the goals as part of ESSA. And we were certain to
    align those goals to make certain that what the State had
    developed was also reflected in the State plan when the State
    forward--when the agency submitted those.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Great, thank you.
        Dr. Wright, we have heard criticisms which continue
    throughout the process for what became ESSA that States can't
    be trusted to hold schools accountable and intervene in low-
    performing schools. And certainly Mr. Garrett touched on this
    in his comments. You talked about school improvement being an
    important element in the plan that Mississippi is developing.
    Obviously, this is something that States and districts must do
    and should do.
        But ESSA largely puts the actual strategies back in your
    hands. Could you tell us more about how your State and school
    districts are thinking about improving low-performing schools
    under ESSA?
        Ms. Wright. Absolutely. As I mentioned earlier that is our
    goal 6 of our strategic plan around ensuring that our districts
    and our schools are rated C or higher. I feel very strongly
    that everybody needs to be held accountable and that starts
    with me, my team, and I think we owe it to our parents to
    ensure that we are looking out for all children across the
    State regardless of ZIP Code, as someone mentioned earlier.
        We are putting together protocols for our low-performing
    schools to follow. And as I mentioned earlier, we have even got
    a totally different process that we are using about having them
    coming in and justify even their spending. And to ensure that
    they do have evidence-based interventions that they are
    spending their money on and not just interventions that do not
    have any evidence of working. And so that is going to be
    something that we are doing on an ongoing basis.
        I feel very strongly that the children of our State deserve
    nothing less than the best and we have to ensure, as a State,
    that we are monitoring that very closely because not only our
    children depend on it, but our parents depend on it, and they
    trust us to make sure that happens.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. Another question, Dr. Wright.
        Ms. Wright. Sure.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Dr. Pletnick has talked about how she
    applauds the planning approach in Arizona even though she
    doesn't agree with everything in the plan. And you have talked
    about the stakeholders you have engaged with and how your State
    plan reflects the view of these stakeholders. And by the way,
    it is an impressive process that you have talked about.
        I am sure that not every stakeholder, though, agrees with
    everything that is in the draft plan so far. So how have you
    engaged with critics to at least ensure everyone has the
    opportunity to be heard?
        Ms. Wright. I think it is really important that everybody's
    voice is heard. I am a big believer in advocacy and I think
    that anybody that is in front of you that is advocating or
    advocating for a reason, and we have been very forthright about
    what we can and cannot do.
        We went through a series of three different assessments in
    three different years. And that kind of drove my teachers and
    superintendents a little crazy. So I said we are going to hold
    tight on an accountability system at least for three straight
    years under the same assessment so that they did not feel I was
    continuing to change the target.
        So when we have got stakeholders coming in and saying,
    well, we would love to have a school climate survey embedded
    into our accountability system, I have said if you can just
    press pause, we are putting a taskforce together now at the end
    of our third year to take a look at our entire accountability
    system and say are there any unintended consequences or are
    there other things we can add.
        So we have acknowledged what they have wanted, but we have
    also tried to provide a reason why we either can or cannot
    include that in our plan.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Great. Thank you very much for that. I
    want to thank all of our witnesses for taking time to testify
    before the committee today and even though most of our members
    have left, I really appreciate members on both sides coming and
    asking good questions, sometimes pontificating, but
    participating in what is going on as everybody has indicated,
    we have an important subject here.
        I would now like to recognize Ranking Member Scott for his
    closing remarks.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, we have
    heard the necessity to get the Department of Education before
    us to respond to some of the concerns about inconsistencies in
    terms of responding to the State plans and other priorities by
    the Department, particularly in terms of the funding
    priorities.
        We have heard the real necessity for having many of the
    programs within ESSA actually funded because if we are asking
    them to get the job done, we have identified technical
    assistance to teachers, afterschool programs, and other things
    that can be very helpful. And if we don't fund them, it just
    complicates their life.
        The Elementary and Secondary Education Act passed in 1965
    was designed as a civil rights law to guarantee equal
    educational opportunities. We have gone through many
    iterations. The last, of course, is ESSA. It has two major
    requirements. One is a requirement that localities assess to
    ascertain whether or not there are achievement gaps and where
    they find achievement gaps, having a meaningful strategy to
    eliminate those.
        Dr. Wright has indicated what a meaningful strategy may
    look like and I think it is significant that it wasn't just one
    program and reaction. It is a long-term strategy that starts
    with early childhood education and following the students to
    ascertain whether or not the strategy is working and making
    sure that you actually address the achievement gap.
        There is flexibility in how to assess and in the strategy
    to eliminate the achievement gaps, but there is no real
    flexibility on the requirement that the assessment be done and
    that the accountability, doing something about it, is credible.
    And if a State fails to adequately explain how they are going
    to assess for achievement gaps or fails to outline a credible
    strategy to address those achievement gaps, it is the
    responsibility of the Department of Education to intervene.
        Madam Chair, we have letters from several organizations
    that I would like to submit for the record. They are letters
    from advocacy organizations and stakeholders about their
    engagement in ESSA approval so far. The letters are from the
    Advocacy Institute, the Council of Parent Attorneys and
    Advocates, NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the
    National Down Syndrome Congress.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Without objection.
        Mr. Scott. I yield back.
        Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much, Mr. Scott.
        I have found this to be very, very interesting hearing
    today. And I think that a lot of what it boils down to is a
    subject we deal with a lot in this committee and that I talk
    about a fair amount, and that is the role of the Federal
    Government in education.
        I think it was very important that both Dr. Wright, Dr.
    Pletnick brought up the fact that ESSA is not your entire
    educational program in your States. I think that many times
    people tend to think that what the Federal Government is
    providing in terms of funding or what we are providing in terms
    of law is it, that is all you are doing.
        And I think we have done a disservice in many cases to the
    American people in many things that the Federal Government has
    done to make it appear as though the Federal Government is the
    savior. We have a big program and all of a sudden everybody
    thinks it is the answer.
        I think my own experiences as a member of a board of
    education tell me a lot about what Mr. Garrett was talking
    about. My experiences since then in visiting schools all over
    the country, we have a lot of wonderful teachers, principals,
    superintendents, custodians who want to provide a great
    educational experience for the students in their schools.
        And I think in many cases the Federal Government has a very
    limited role in that and that for us to always look to the
    Federal Government to solve every problem that exists out there
    is a mistake. And we have to understand the limitations, I
    think, that we have.
        I think ESSA was a big step forward in giving the
    flexibility that the locals and the States need to be able to
    provide that education. My colleague said what we should be
    about is providing equal educational opportunities and I
    certainly believe that.
        I believe that education is the answer to so many things
    that so many challenges facing people in this country from
    getting out of poverty, to finding meaningful work, to having a
    successful life. So I want those opportunities.
        But I think too many times what we say to the American
    people is that we can have equality in outcomes. And having
    taught for 15 years I know that just isn't going to happen.
        I was shocked. When I taught I said to my students
    everybody in here can make an A and I really meant that. And I
    gave unlimited opportunities to students to do that. But I had
    a Bell-shaped curve every semester and I was truly shocked by
    that because I didn't believe--I thought everybody would take
    every opportunity to make the best grade that he or she could
    make and it didn't happen.
        So I believe in equal educational opportunities, but I
    don't think we are going to have equal results. And I think we
    have to temper what we do, but we have to trust people at the
    local level. And I appreciate very much those people who are
    out there every day teaching, committing themselves to helping
    students. And for those of you who are administrators, bless
    you for what you do. Particularly bless you if you listen to
    your teachers, you listen to your parents, and you listen to
    the stakeholders.
        The other thing that we hear a lot about, and I am really
    glad Mr. DeSaulnier brought this up because it is true again on
    both sides of the aisle, in most cases we think of education as
    preparation for the workforce. We don't have many people who
    can go through an educational system and then not do anything
    to provide for themselves. And we are all hearing about this.
    And so I think emphasis on what we are doing out there, whether
    people end at the secondary level and don't go on for any other
    formal education, they are going to get educated whether it is
    a formal process is really important.
        But I think we are moving in the right direction with ESSA
    and I am, again, particularly glad to hear our two
    administrative people talk about how this is one piece of the
    answer, not all of it because I think we have to understand the
    proper role of the Federal Government.
        So thank you all very much. There being no further
    business, the committee stands adjourned.
        [Additional submission by Mr. Lovell follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Additional submissions by Mr. Scott follow:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Whereupon, at 12:32 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                     [all]