[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]