[Senate Hearing 115-848]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-848
THE EVERY STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT:
STATES LEADING THE WAY
=======================================================================
HEARING
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION,
LABOR, AND PENSIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
EXAMINING THE EVERY STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT, FOCUSING ON STATES LEADING
THE WAY
__________
SEPTEMBER 25, 2018
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
32-295 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee, Chairman
MMICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming PATTY MURRAY, Washington
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina BERNARD SANDERS (I), Vermont
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania
RAND PAUL, Kentucky MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
BILL CASSIDY, M.D., Louisiana CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
TODD YOUNG, Indiana ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah TIM KAINE, Virginia
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska TINA SMITH, Minnesota
TIM SCOTT, South Carolina DOUG JONES, Alabama
David P. Cleary, Republican Staff Director
Lindsey Ward Seidman, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Evan Schatz, Democratic Staff Director
John Righter, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2018
Page
Committee Members
Alexander, Hon. Lamar, Chairman, Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions, Opening statement......................... 1
Murray, Hon. Patty, Ranking Member, a U.S. Senator from the State
of Washington, Opening statement............................... 3
Witnesses
Blomstedt, Matthew L., Ph.D., Commissioner, Nebraska Department
of Education, Lincoln, NE...................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Bunting, Susan, Ed.D., Secretary, Delaware Department of
Education, Dover, DE........................................... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Jeffries, Shavar, President, Democrats for Education Reform,
Newark, NJ..................................................... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Spearman, Molly, Superintendent, South Carolina Department of
Education, Columbia, SC........................................ 21
Prepared statement........................................... 23
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc.
Bloomstedt, Matthew:
Supporting documentation from the Nebraska Department of
Education.................................................. 54-70
Bunting, Susan:
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education........................................ 71-72
Delaware Department of Education, One Percent Waiver Request. 73-84
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Response by Matthew Bloomstedt to questions of:
Hon. Todd Young.............................................. 85
Hon. Patty Murray............................................ 87
Hon. Bernard Sanders......................................... 89
Hon. Elizabeth Warren........................................ 92
Hon. Tim Kaine............................................... 94
Hon. Maggie Hassan........................................... 96
Hon. Doug Jones.............................................. 98
Response by Molly Spearman to questions of:
Hon. Patty Murray............................................ 99
Hon. Bernard Sanders......................................... 102
Hon. Elizabeth Warren........................................ 104
Hon. Tim Kaine............................................... 106
Hon. Maggie Hassan........................................... 107
Hon. Doug Jones.............................................. 109
Response by Shavar Jeffries to questions of:
Hon. Patty Murray............................................ 110
Hon. Bernard Sanders......................................... 111
Hon. Tim Kaine............................................... 115
Hon. Doug Jones.............................................. 116
Response by Susan Bunting to questions of:
Hon. Patty Murray............................................ 117
Hon. Bernard Sanders......................................... 120
Hon. Elizabeth Warren........................................ 122
Hon. Tim Kaine............................................... 124
Hon. Maggie Hassan........................................... 125
Hon. Doug Jones.............................................. 127
THE EVERY STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT:.
STATES LEADING THE WAY
----------
Tuesday, September 25, 2018
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m. in
room SD-430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lamar
Alexander, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Alexander [presiding], Cassidy, Young,
Scott, Murray, Casey, Bennet, Murphy, Warren, Kaine, Hassan,
Smith, and Jones.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ALEXANDER
The Chairman. The Senate Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions will please come to order.
Senator Murray and I will each have an opening statement.
Then I will introduce the witnesses, whom we welcome today.
Then we will hear from the witnesses, as I said, and then
Senators will each have 5 minutes to ask questions.
We have a full house of guests in the audience and I
welcome you here. We are glad you are here. This is part of
your right as an American citizen. You can expect a vigorous
back and forth among the Senators. That is the nature of this
Committee. We have different points of view, but I would ask
that those in the audience respect the rules of the Senate in
terms of no applause, or demonstrations, or comments during the
hearing.
Candace Hines, a kindergarten teacher in Memphis, recently
wrote in the Memphis ``Commercial Appeal'' the following,
``This year, Tennessee schools will begin to implement our
state's new education plan under the Every Student Succeeds
Act,'' which we call ESSA. ``Unlike the previous education law,
No Child Left Behind, ESSA gives Tennessee more autonomy to
design policies to meet the needs of our state's students,''
she wrote. ``ESSA empowers Tennessee with the responsibility to
decide how to close achievement gaps, improve schools, and make
sure that all our children succeed.''
Reaching the point of fixing No Child Left Behind took
seven years of congressional efforts, 27 hearings, and a three-
day markup in this Committee where we considered 57 amendments.
The consensus this Committee reached was this: continue the
law's important measurements of academic progress of students,
but restore to states what to do about that progress.
The Every Student Succeeds Act gave Tennessee, in Candace's
words, ``A real opportunity for our state to build on the
progress we have made and enact change, especially in
traditionally underserved communities.''
Today, I look forward to hearing how Nebraska, South
Carolina, and Delaware are taking advantage of that
opportunity. Under ESSA, in order to receive over $18 billion
in annual Federal funding, states have the opportunity to
design their own state plan that includes setting academic
goals for students, measuring schools' performance, and
deciding how to fix failing schools.
In the words of two Memphis teachers, Soya Moore and
Jessica Hurtley, ``ESSA put issues such as teacher evaluations,
student assessments, and school reform directly into the hands
of state education departments and school districts. ESSA
provides a window of opportunity for teachers to get in on the
policy discussion and the law's implementation planning.''
Today, 49 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico, have had their plan approved by the U.S. Department of
Education.
Last October, this Committee held a hearing to hear from
the state education chiefs in three states--Tennessee,
Louisiana, and New Mexico--that were among the best at making
the most of the new law by designing innovative plans.
For example, we heard from Tennessee Education
Commissioner, Candice McQueen, about the state's development
and use of a Ready Graduate indicator that will evaluate
students' readiness for college, career, or the military
service.
This past spring, students in grades 3 to 8 and high school
took the federally required tests in reading, mathematics, and
science, giving states under these new plans new data. This
gives that new data a chance to see how students are making
progress toward the new achievement goals that each state has
set.
Some states--such as Idaho, North Dakota, Texas--are
starting to run this new data through their state designed
accountability systems and have released lists of schools
identified for support and improvement. All states are working
to produce these new lists and then we will begin to work with
local districts to improve these schools.
Today, we will hear specifically from three states who,
based upon my review of the plans, have also taken advantage of
the flexibility we encouraged under the law to design
innovative plans.
For example, South Carolina is using flexibility provided
under ESSA to use some of its Title 1 money to fund programs
for high school students to take dual credit classes, or for
students to receive extra math or reading help at afterschool
programs.
Nebraska's ESSA plan includes a statewide data base so
teachers can access best practices, share information with each
other, and work together.
Delaware's accountability system includes a College and
Career Preparedness indicator which will measure the percentage
of high school students who have successfully taken advanced
classes or had technical skills training that will prepare them
for success after graduation.
Former North Carolina teacher and principal, Alison
Welcher, recently wrote, ``Ultimately, these plans are just
writing on paper. The most important work states will undertake
comes during the next phase: implementation. We are at a
tipping point. States have an exceptional opportunity to use
their authority to set a high bar for those who have the
privilege of leading our Nation's schools.''
The Every Student Succeeds Act put states back in the
driver's seat for decisions on how to help their students, and
I am eager to see what this new chapter holds for our Nation's
students.
Senator Murray.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MURRAY
Senator Murray. Well, thank you very much, Chairman
Alexander.
I do want to thank all of our witnesses that are here
today. This is an important hearing on the implementation of
ESSA.
But before I talk about that, I do want to dig into one
issue that is on the mind of every teacher, parent--many of
them who are here today--students, and should be a focus of
this Committee, and that is the growing number of deadly school
shootings around our country.
In the aftermath of these shootings, we should be doing
everything we can to address gun violence and make our schools
safer. Unfortunately, Secretary DeVos is heading in the
opposite direction. Despite an outcry from students, and
parents, and teachers, and Members of Congress, she is going to
allow schools to use Federal funds to purchase guns or firearm
training for teachers.
This is not what Congress intended when we passed the
bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act. And some Republicans,
like Congressman Cole, have made that point clear. Congressman
Cole said, and I quote, ``It is already against the law. I
think it is pretty clear if you read the Every Student Succeeds
Act.''
Even worse, this idea is dangerous and it could put the
lives of all of our children and schools' staff at risk. You
only need to hear one story of a teacher that accidentally
fires a gun in a classroom, or leaves it where a child can get
access to it, or threatens a child with a gun to know we need
fewer firearms in schools, not more.
Now, Secretary DeVos is claiming that Congress did not give
her the authority to stop this, but Republicans and Democrats
in Congress are telling her the opposite. She absolutely does,
and can, and should put an end to this reckless and
irresponsible idea.
Secretary DeVos refuses to hold up her responsibility to
keep student safe. Mr. Chairman, I hope that you will work with
me to make it abundantly clear to her that this is not what we
intended in our legislation and direct her to do the right
thing.
While it is on Secretary DeVos to act, our hands are not
tied. We could work together, and should work together, just as
we did to pass ESSA to stop this.
Finally on this point, Mr. Chairman, I want to express my
support for Senator Murphy and every other Democrat, actually,
on this Committee's request for Secretary DeVos to come and
testify in front of this Committee on ESSA and on gun safety.
Twenty months into this administration and neither
Secretary DeVos nor anyone from her Department have testified
in front of this Committee. Now, I understand that Secretary
DeVos may not want to come in front of us, but given the
urgency of this issue of school safety, Mr. Chairman, I do hope
that we can remedy that as soon as possible.
Now Mr. Chairman, on numerous occasions I have expressed,
as well, my concerns with Secretary DeVos' approval of state
plans that do not comply with the law.
I have voiced these concerns in this Committee room and in
private conversations with the Chairman, and I am disappointed
that, so far, we have been refused to honor the agreement that
was made in this room and work with me to resolve the issues
with Secretary DeVos' implementation of our bipartisan law
because all but one plan has now been approved.
Today I really want to focus on the real life impacts of
some of these flawed state plans.
Secretary DeVos has approved state accountability systems
that do not take into account the performance of certain groups
of students including low income students, students of color,
students with disabilities, and English learners.
Democrats voted for this law, in part, because of these
requirements to ensure equity. Yet, they are being disregarded
by this administration. Secretary DeVos has also approved plans
that fail to properly identify schools that need help or
support getting back on track.
Here is what this really means for students and schools in
our communities. Without properly counting the success of
groups of students who have historically struggled in a
school's overall performance, a school may look like it is
succeeding, even if all the African Americans students or all
the students with disabilities, for example, are falling
behind.
Without properly identifying three separate categories of
schools in need of support or improvement, a school that is in
need of a little bit of support will never be identified. And
rather than getting the help that it needs, the school's
problems may get worse and a school could fall further and
further behind.
These are not theoretical. Under the plans Secretary DeVos
has approved, students will fall through the cracks and schools
will be left off worse. At their core, these provisions are
about providing equity in our schools.
Now, equity is not easy. We have to put in the hard work.
We have to ask schools to put in the hard work. We have to ask
students to put in the hard work to get a strong education and
set themselves up for a success, but we have to do our part. We
have to ensure that Secretary DeVos is implementing the law the
way we agreed to it to give those students a fair shot.
Our Federal education law should not be focused solely on
making states' lives easier. It should be about providing every
student--no matter where they live, or how they learn, or how
much money their parents make--the opportunity to better
themselves through education.
Finally, I do want to touch on one more issue with
Secretary DeVos' implementation, now that she has approved all
but one of these state plans. When we worked together on ESSA,
we set out to build on the strong steps that were being made to
hold states accountable for the learning of students with
disabilities.
I made it a priority to ensure we were not leaving students
with the most significant cognitive disabilities behind by
limiting the number of children who could be tested using a
simplified assessment.
Well, it is only appropriate to use this test with about
one half of 1 percent of students. We set the cap at 1 percent.
This is important because if too many students are taking the
simplified test, it means that too many students are being
taught to a lower standard, and that too many students with
disabilities are being subjected to low expectations.
It is concerning to me that Secretary DeVos has waived the
1 percent cap for 23 states that have not made public the
waiver request and the supporting documents public.
Transparency here is important and parents and Congress have a
right to have this information. So I hope we can address that
issue as well today, and I hope to hear from the states that
are here today.
There are clearly, in my opinion, a lot of problems with
the way Secretary DeVos is implementing our bipartisan K-12
education law. And I do hope today that rather than just
focusing solely on the things we like, that we do the hard work
and address the very real concerns with the way this law is
being implemented and focus on the students that are going to
be impacted.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murray.
I will address two or three of those points briefly, but I
will do it during my 5 minutes when the time comes, so we can
appreciate Senator Murray's comments.
We will go now to the witnesses. Thank you for being here.
Our first witness is Dr. Matthew Blomstedt, who is the
Nebraska Commissioner of Education. He has led the statewide
effort to create the Nebraska Every Student Succeeds Act state
plan working to find input from thousands of Nebraskans.
Prior to becoming Commissioner, he served as Executive
Director of the Nebraska Rural Community Schools Association.
Our next witness is Dr. Susan Bunting, Secretary of the
Delaware Department of Education. Dr. Bunting makes it a
priority to visit 100 schools statewide every year. I think
there are only three counties in Delaware. Are there not? That
is a lot of schools for three counties.
Prior to her time as Secretary, Dr. Bunting served as the
Indian River School District Superintendent. She was a Middle
School language arts teacher and an elementary school gifted
and talented teacher.
Our third witness, I will introduce. Mr. Shavar Jeffries,
President of Education Reform Now. Welcome. Mr. Jeffries'
commitment to improve education stems directly from his
personal experience. He was raised by his grandmother in the
South Ward of Newark, New Jersey. His grandmother, a public
school teacher, instilled in him a deep respect for the value
of education.
He served as a former Associate Professor of law at Seton
Hall Law School Center for Social Justice at Newark, New
Jersey.
Our final witness is Ms. Molly Spearman, State
Superintendent of South Carolina. Ms. Spearman was named South
Carolina's State Superintendent of Education in January 2015.
Since that time, she has worked to prioritize school safety and
instruction to ensure that every child is on track to college
or a professional career.
Prior to her time as Superintendent, Ms. Spearman served as
a music teacher, public school assistant superintendent, four
term member of the South Carolina House of Representatives,
deputy superintendent of the South Carolina Department of
Education, and Executive Director of the South Carolina
Association of School Administrators.
We thank the four of you for coming and we will now begin
remarks.
Dr. Blomstedt, let us begin with you.
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW L. BLOMSTEDT, PH.D., COMMISSIONER,
NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, LINCOLN, NE
Dr. Blomstedt. Thank you, Senator Alexander, Ranking Member
Murray, and all Members of the Committee.
Thank you, really, for the opportunity to appear before you
to discuss Nebraska's implementation of the Every Student
Succeeds Act.
Nebraskans are proud of the education system in our state.
We typically rank high in student achievement on various,
different settings. Yet with other states, we have an equity
issue as well. We face longstanding gaps in achievement based
on race, poverty, special needs, ethnicity, English learners,
every subgroup or category that we are very concerned about. In
2014, Nebraska embarked on a journey at the state level to
address these longstanding gaps.
I am grateful for this Committee and to Congress for
passing the Every Student Succeeds Act in 2015 as it really
complements our work to address these disparities head on and
reach our full vision that all students receive the preparation
they need for learning, earning, and living.
Let me take you back to 2014 just for a moment. Early that
year is the first year that I actually started. I started on
January 2, 2014. But the Nebraska legislature passed revisions
to our Quality Education Accountability Act. Legislative bill
438 set forth the new vision for educational improvement along
with an educational accountability system that we now call
Accountability for a Quality Educational System Today and
Tomorrow, or AQuESTT.
As part of the planning and implementation of AQuESTT, the
State Board of Education and I conducted stakeholder input
sessions to further refine and improve the initial system that
was proposed. That journey continues. With changes adopted in
L.B. 438, the Governor, the State Board of Education, myself,
and the legislature included, are all working toward the common
vision for education.
The State Board further directed efforts with a strategic
plan that highlights specific goals around student achievement
and seeks to engage school districts in a partnership with the
state to address these historic gaps in achievement.
With the passage of ESSA, we now see the Federal Government
as a strong partner in supporting us to execute on this vision
and to address the achievement gaps in our state.
ESSA has allowed us to better align Federal programs into
our state system, which would not have been possible underneath
No Child Left Behind without significant waivers to that law.
In fact in early 2015, Nebraska submitted an application for a
waiver before we knew ESSA would become law.
Under our state law, we were already planning to classify
schools and invest more concentrated support in those schools
that were identified for most need of assistance to improve.
This would not have been allowed in that fashion underneath
NCLB, but ESSA really gave us a roadmap to be able to move that
vision forward.
Today, we can move forward not only in establishing our
long term goals, but working on key strategies to achieve them.
Our long term goals include reducing the percentage of
students, including students in each subgroup, who are not
proficient in math, reading, and science by 50 percent over a
ten-year period of time based on a baseline established in
2014-2015.
Similarly, we have set an objective to reduce the
percentage of students who do not graduate and to reduce the
percentage of our English learners who do not reach the state's
growth targets for English language proficiency.
Under ESSA, our state is able to align Federal supports for
underperforming schools with state systems of accreditation and
accountability. For instance, under our state law, we must
identify priority schools to have the opportunity to provide
substantial state-directed interventions toward improvement in
these schools.
The ability to align our state priority school status with
Federal identification categories greatly strengthens our
state's approach to school improvement, and leverages the
Federal funds as a strong support for schools that are in need
of improvement.
Nebraska still has a lot of work to do to establish this
particular system. So we are now also working and trying to
change how we offer support to our schools identified under
this accountability system and aligned with our state AQuESTT
system.
Based on the requirements of ESSA, Nebraska's systems will
identify schools in need of comprehensive support and
improvement, as well as targeted support and improvement, and
hold them accountable for making improvements in the
achievement of all students as appropriate also by subgroups of
students' performance as triggers that target support as well.
Our state agency will work with individual districts in
turning around those particular schools, working as best we can
to be able to support that, building the capacity across our
educational service units and our Department of Education, and
changing the path that we have taken.
Further, we really provided that tailored assistance
approach for schools that fall in certain categories. We have
those that are traditionally rural, small community schools. We
have those that are urban and metro schools. We have what we
call demographically shifting communities, and we have Native
American schools. We are trying to provide a particular focus
on those places.
In summary, Nebraska is committed to addressing inequities
of the past by focusing on opportunities to learn for all
students, and by adopting a relentless focus on outcomes that
ensure all stakeholders deliver on the promise of equity.
I really look forward to be able to share more and interact
with you. So thank you, again, for this opportunity to be here.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Blomstedt follows:]
prepared statement of matthew l. blomstedt
Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray, and Members of the
Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss
Nebraska's implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).
Nebraskans are proud of the education system in our state; we typically
rank among the top 15 in student achievement in all subjects and
grades, as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress.
Further, in 2014-2015 we had a four-year adjusted cohort graduation
rate of 89 percent, well above the national average. As with other
states, Nebraska faces long-standing gaps in achievement outcomes for
students in certain student subgroups, like African American students
and Native American students compared to those for our students as a
whole. ESSA complements our work to address those disparities head-on
to reach the state's vision of all students receiving the preparation
they need for learning, earning, and living.
Thank you, Senator Alexander, Senator Murray, and Members of the
HELP Committee for leading the effort to enact ESSA in 2015. It
replaced a Federal structure under the No Child Left Behind Act that
dictated top-down goals and a nationally determined accountability
system. ESSA, by contrast, has given states the opportunity to better
align Federal accountability requirements with their own education
policy objectives in a manner sensitive to state and local needs and
circumstances. Toward that effort, the Nebraska Department of Education
(NDE), with substantial input from stakeholders, embarked on a process
of integrating ESSA with the state's educational accountability system
that was implemented with the 2014 enactment of major education
legislation in our state, Legislative Bill (LB) 438. That state law
resulted in Nebraska developing a new vision for educational
improvement, along with an educational accountability system that we
call Accountability for a Quality Education System, Today and Tomorrow
(AQuESTT).
At the passage of LB 438 in early 2014 in the first few months of
my tenure as Commissioner, and while beginning the development of our
state ESSA plan in December 2015, the State Board of Education and I
led significant stakeholder engagement efforts across Nebraska. We
received input from a diverse array of voices including school board
members, parents, private non-profit leaders, and community leaders
among others. In Nebraska, we are fortunate to have an elected State
Board of Education as a constitutional body that has a positive working
relationship with the state legislature, Governor, and other
policymakers across the state. As such, we have regular opportunities
to engage with all of state and local government in a productive
manner. We also used the NDE webpage as a mechanism for contact with
stakeholders broadly, and thousands of individuals and groups provided
input on our strategic plan, on AQuESTT, and on our ESSA plan. In
addition to input through the website, specifically with respect to our
ESSA plan, we embarked on a listening tour at seven locations around
the state, conducted engagement sessions with other stakeholders, and
carried out a number of other activities to ensure that many groups of
individuals and perspectives were part of the planning process. While
it may be difficult to include every voice effectively, I believe we
heard the voices of varying stakeholder groups and incorporated their
input and feedback when relevant. We will continue to work with
stakeholders throughout the duration of the period covered by the plan
and beyond ESSA. While we sought stakeholder engagement before ESSA,
ESSA inspired us to improve our stakeholder engagement processes.
The education of Native American students and communication with
tribal governments continue to be an important focus of our work. ESSA
contains new requirements to consult with American Indian tribes in the
development and implementation our state plan and we continue to
embrace the importance of that requirement. State tribal consultation
is personally very important as we have identified our areas of focus
on equity and believe there is a need to expand capacity to assist in
the successes of state and local tribal consultation. I recognize that
schools on tribal lands must serve the important needs of the local
school district community as well as that of the sovereign tribal
governance. The rich and open conversations I have had throughout our
state with tribal leaders have personally opened my eyes about the
importance of culturally relevant practices, tribal governance, and
efforts to re-establish a Nebraska Indian Education Association. Those
conversations were made priorities with the passage of ESSA and for
that I am personally grateful and deeply committed.
The state accountability law mentioned earlier, (LB 438) required
NDE to classify the state's public schools. The State Board of
Education approved four classification levels and identified the
schools in the lowest level as Needs Improvement. Additionally, state
law required that we select no more than three schools as ``priority
schools'' with the opportunity to provide substantial and state
directed interventions toward improvement. ESSA allowed us to better
align Federal programs into our state system, which would not have been
possible under NCLB without significant waivers of the law. In fact, in
2015 Nebraska submitted a significant application for waiver in advance
of the passage of ESSA. However, the passage of ESSA allowed the
significant state direction to be realized without such a waiver. As a
result, consistent with ESSA requirements, and building from our
state's own strategic plan, we have established long-term goals of
reducing the percentage of students (including students in each
subgroup) who are not proficient in math, reading, and science by 50
percent over a ten-year time period, from a baseline established in
2014-2015. Our performance indicators and interim measures of progress
under ESSA are aligned with that objective, which we believe to be
ambitious but achievable. Similarly, we have set an objective of
reducing the percentage of students who do not graduate (using the
four-year adjusted cohort rate and an extended seven-year rate) by 50
percent over a ten-year period and of reducing, again by 50 percent and
over 10 years, the percentage of our English learners who do not reach
the state's growth targets for English language proficiency.
Importantly, our state has also established challenge (or stretch)
goals calling for higher performance in some of these areas. The
inclusion of these additional goals resulted from conversations with
Nebraska Governor, Pete Ricketts and I directly. Although Governor
Ricketts did not sign our plan specifically, he did submit a letter in
support of the plan to Secretary DeVos. The Governor also worked
closely with me to identify areas that could be enhanced for the future
and to identify areas of statute and rule that might be amended to
maintain a high expectation. For example, our challenge goal for
academic achievement is a 70 percent (rather than 50 percent) reduction
in the rate of non-proficiency. We will carefully monitor our schools'
performance against the initial goals to see if, in a later year, we
should transition to the more ambitious stretch goals instead.
Equally important to the work with Governor Ricketts on ideas in
the ESSA plan have been conversations and partnership with the state
legislature in making small but important changes in the state
accountability law. This past spring the legislature passed LB 1081, an
omnibus bill on behalf of the Nebraska Department of Education that
included important provisions, which enhanced the ability of our then
submitted ESSA plan to better align with state statute. For instance,
the legislature passed and the Governor approved provisions that
included assuring annual classification of school districts and
buildings, expanding the number of state priority schools from ``no
more than three'' to ``no less than three'' and adding important
language for a Nebraska Reading Improvement Act. All such changes
assist the alignment of ESSA goals with the state accountability
system. Most significantly, the powers of state governance still make
up the bulk of the authority, funding, and responsibility for education
of Nebraska's students. The benefit of ESSA is that it will fully
support those powers of the state to benefit and direct resources to
schools that are most in need of support for improvement. The ability
to align Federal supports established in comprehensive support and
improvement (CSI) and targeted support and improvement (TSI) schools is
strengthened by the powers of the state through accreditation and
accountability. For instance, the ability to use our priority school
status with additional schools is a much stronger power than CSI or TSI
alone. Public schools are compelled under state law to meet the
requirements of accreditation and now under the accountability
provisions that allow intervention in priority schools. Nebraska still
has work to do in establishing the most effective alignment of these
supports and powers, but I believe this is a major step forward in the
proper alignment of Federal, state, and local governments for the
improvement of schools, student experiences, and student achievement.
Additionally and with a particular attention to student
achievement, Nebraska includes performance indicators for academic
achievement and growth, high school graduation, and English language
proficiency; ESSA requires that a state accountability system include
one or more indicators of school quality and student success. In
Nebraska, we included measures of chronic absenteeism (a student
missing at least 10 percent of school days), science achievement
(measured using our state assessments), and the, Evidence-Based
Analysis, or EBA. The EBA is a measure of school quality based on the
extent to which schools implement certain policies, practices, and
procedures, such as practices that support on-time grade completion and
provide educational opportunities and access. These indicators arose
from our work on AQuESTT, reflected what our stakeholders believe are
key indicators of school performance, and meet the ESSA requirement
that school quality and student success indicators be valid and
reliable across the state, and produce data that can be disaggregated
by subgroups.
Taken together, our performance indicators present a multi-
dimensional and holistic picture of what our schools are accomplishing;
one that I believe is far superior to the situation we had under NCLB
that had a unidimensional focus on the percentage of students testing
proficient in reading and math. Our accountability system incorporates
these various indicators in a manner that reflects our state's judgment
on the appropriate weighing and meets the ESSA requirements. Most of
all, I continue to be encouraged by Secretary DeVos and those at the
USDE who challenge states to continue to evolve and innovate through
this accountability system. Plans of this magnitude must adapt and
change in order to remain a positive force for improvement. I believe
we can always be improving, and the flexibility afforded under ESSA
lives up to that vital aspiration.
Based on the requirements of ESSA, Nebraska's system will identify
schools in need of comprehensive support and improvement (CSI) and
targeted support and improvement (TSI) and hold them accountable for
making improvements in the achievement of all students or, as
appropriate, of the student subgroups in which the performance has
triggered a TSI identification. The NDE will work with individual
districts in turning around those schools. Beginning this school year,
we are awarding the Section 1003 school improvement funds
competitively, with the competition structured so that local
educational agencies (LEAs) with the greatest need for assistance to
improve will have the most likelihood of receiving funding. Further,
NDE and intermediate education agency staff are being trained to work
with CSI schools, including training on the monitoring the uses of
school improvement funds. Consistent with the law, our staff will also
provide technical assistance (to each LEA in the state that has a
significant number of CSI or TSI schools) on the use of evidence-based
educational interventions. This effort will begin with completion of a
needs analysis for each targeted LEA. Further, we will provide tailored
assistance to schools falling within certain categories: small
community schools, urban and metro schools, demographically shifting
schools, and Native American schools.
It is important to note that valid and reliable assessment is
essential if we are to hold schools accountable for the achievement of
their students, and if we are to give parents and other community
members accurate information on how their children are progressing.
Accordingly, we recently announced the creation of our Nebraska
Student-Centered Assessment System (NSCAS). NSCAS is comprised of
multiple measures of student learning, including formative assessments
that enable educators to monitor student understanding and adjust
instruction in the moment; interim assessments that track academic
growth and target learning needs over time; and summative assessments
that provide final measures of student achievement in English language
arts, reading and science. The system also includes professional
development opportunities that help teachers use assessment data to
strengthen their instruction and effectiveness. In addition, we are
providing LEAs and schools with information on how to engage parents in
assessment, such as on test-taking strategies, what questions to ask
teachers about assessment results, and guidance on how results are best
used to support student learning. We are confident this new system will
enable Nebraska to test more efficiently and effectively, and provide a
foundation for our efforts to improve education for all our students.
Finally, an effective and engaged educator workforce is an
essential component of any effective system of public education. ESSA
gave Nebraska new tools and opportunities for supporting our teachers
and school leaders. We have worked with stakeholders to develop
activities under Title II that align with initiatives already underway
in the state on improving educator effectiveness and increasing equal
access to effective educators. This work resulted in the creation of an
Educator Workforce Index that measures the quality of a district's
educator performance assessment system, and the extent to which
students are exposed to inexperienced, out-of-field, or unqualified
teachers and school leaders. We expect to continue to improve that
effort and anticipate the approach will drive ongoing conversations and
efforts on educator quality and equity. In particular, it should
support attainment of our strategic plan goal that, by 2020, all
Nebraska districts have a research-based evaluation system for all
certificated staff.
We will also take advantage of the optional three percent set-aside
available under Title II for strengthening school leadership, and use
it for activities that increase the capacity of school leaders to
attract, recruit, develop, and retain effective educators. This action,
which directly focuses on a critical need as identified by our
stakeholders, is another example of how ESSA has given us new tools
with which to tackle our particular needs and challenges in K-12
education.
In summary, Nebraska is committed to addressing inequities of the
past by focusing on opportunities to learn for all students and by
adopting a relentless focus on outcomes that ensure all stakeholders
deliver on the promise of equity. We have asked all Nebraskans to join
us in this commitment and the historic principles of equity embedded in
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as reauthorized by ESSA.
This unmatched opportunity to lead a state-level approach to equity
with a strong Federal and local partnership is not one Nebraska takes
lightly. Instead, we continue to champion commitments to equity, build
capacities to improve supports for schools and students, and enhance
our efforts to be change agents for the good of all of Nebraska's
students.
This concludes my brief overview of Nebraska's implementation of
the Every Student Succeeds Act. I look forward to sharing more of
Nebraska's progress under ESSA with you, and am pleased to take your
questions.
______
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Blomstedt.
Dr. Bunting.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN BUNTING, ED.D., SECRETARY, DELAWARE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, DOVER, DE
Dr. Bunting. Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray, and
Members of the Committee.
Thank you for having me here today as well, and for working
to approve the Every Student Succeeds Act with bipartisan
support three years ago.
In 2015, I was serving as a district superintendent and
advocated on behalf of Delaware's chiefs for the passage of
this law in Congress. We recognized that No Child Left Behind
had run its course and welcomed this reauthorized law to give
us the opportunity to promote different approaches to improving
struggling schools.
Today, I have the honor of serving as Secretary of
Education in Delaware. In this role, I realized that by passing
ESSA, Congress has harnessed the energy in states and local
communities, and infused promising practices into the
implementation of the new law while still ensuring appropriate
accountability guardrails.
While it is too early to provide final judgment on the
prospects of ESSA to achieve these goals, I am greatly
encouraged by the work underway in Delaware to create more
equitable opportunities for all children. We will be sharing
some of this progress as we talk with you today.
Delaware educators are working to get it right for students
with support from the Council of Chief State School Officers,
we are working to close gaps and to turn around schools. We are
making sure that school improvement interventions do not result
in unintended consequences for children. Most importantly, we
are doing all of this by surrounding ourselves with
stakeholders who are providing constant feedback to make sure
that we get it right.
From the beginning, the law rightly asked states to work
closely with stakeholders and we embraced that opportunity
involving a diverse group of stakeholders to both write our
ESSA plan and to help us implement the law.
To help create the plan, we brought together an ESSA
Advisory Council, whose members ran the gamut from the
President of the State's Superintendents Association to a
Nanticoke Tribe member, from legislators to P.T.A. officers,
and from businessmen to the Executive Director of the Latin
American Community Center. These stakeholders made many of the
critical decisions.
One example can be seen in our statewide accountability
system, which now includes multiple measures of school success
rather than a single academic indicator. Included at both the
elementary and secondary levels are academic proficiency in
English language arts and math, and also growth in English
language arts and math.
In addition, school quality measures include chronic
absenteeism, proficiency in science and social studies, career
and college preparedness, and ninth graders being on track to
graduate. A further indicator of student success is the
graduation rate itself. Delaware also measures English language
learners' progress toward proficiency.
Our stakeholders also have helped to redesign how the
Department of Education will offer support to low performing
schools. We have created a Performance Support Team, no longer
as a single office within the Department responsible for school
improvement, rather a team is ready to come together across
areas of expertise to address the specific and unique needs of
each of our schools.
Once schools are identified, the Performance Support Team
will offer a menu of evidence-based available supports that can
be aligned with individualized plans developed jointly between
the state and local education agencies.
Delaware's political leaders have also strongly seized a
role in our state's school improvement movement, investing
additional funds for math specialists and reading
interventionists, and putting $6 million in grants for schools
with large low income or English learner student populations.
ESSA's positives have been many and its negatives few.
However, we have encountered a few challenges in implementing
the law.
For example, our design to include science and social
studies proficiency in the academic achievement and progress
sections of our accountability system failed to receive initial
Federal approval even though Secretary DeVos has strongly
encouraged states to think out of the box. Consequently, we
were forced instead to relegate these two subjects to the
school quality section of our accountability system.
As Delaware journeys deeper into ESSA implementation, the
most significant obstacle, that of turning around our
struggling schools, still lies ahead. We have the structure,
though, and the partners in place to improve outcomes for all
students.
When the Senate voted overwhelmingly to approve ESSA, it
was a vote of confidence in state and local educators, and
their ability to do what is right for children.
I reiterate my gratitude for allowing us the flexibility to
implement ESSA in a way that best addresses the specific needs
of the students in each state, and I request that you continue
to support us as we work closely with stakeholders in our state
to fully implement the law to ensure every student's success.
As state leaders, we do not consider this a job. It is our
life's work. Like my colleagues here today, Delaware is
committed to maximizing ESSA-supported opportunities that can
lead to better outcomes for all of our students. We will make
it happen. Our children deserve nothing less.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Bunting follows:]
prepared statement of susan s. bunting
First, I would like to thank this Committee for working to develop
and approve ESSA with 85 ``yes'' votes in the Senate in 2015. At that
time, I was serving as a local district superintendent and as an AASA
legislative advocate, and was fortunate to share the perspective of
superintendents with Delaware's congressional delegates to not only
confirm that No Child Left Behind (NCLB) had run its course and that
its one-size-fits-all approach did not yield necessary improvements,
but to also enthusiastically support the new law's support for
promoting different approaches to improving struggling schools across
the country. By passing ESSA, Congress harnessed the energy in states
and local communities in Delaware and across the country, and infused
promising practices into the implementation of the new law while still
ensuring appropriate accountability guardrails. While it is too early
to provide final judgment on the prospects for ESSA to realize its
goals, I am greatly encouraged by the work underway in Delaware to
create more equitable opportunities for all children.
Stakeholder Engagement in ESSA Assessment, Accountability, and
Reporting
Congress embraced state and local flexibility in ESSA, while
preserving accountability for outcomes for all students. This was a
bipartisan acknowledgement that states and school districts, with the
support of the U.S. Department of Education, are best situated to know
how to serve the young people in their communities. No one better
understands the potential and the possible pitfalls faced by our
schools than the education professionals I represent and serve.
Delaware educators are working to ``get it right'' for students. With
support from the Council of Chief State School Officers, we are working
to close gaps and turn around schools, and we are making sure that
school improvement interventions don't result in unintended
consequences for kids. To date, we have attempted to do this by
surrounding ourselves with stakeholders who are providing constant
input and feedback on the best ways to maximize flexibility in
promoting student success.
Admittedly, from the beginning, Delaware's ESSA plan has been one
``of the people, by the people, and for the people.'' The law rightly
asks states to work closely with stakeholders--teachers, principals,
parents, students, tribal leaders, and community organizations--to do
what is best for the students in their state and local communities.
Delaware thoroughly embraced this opportunity and involved a diverse
group of stakeholders in not only writing its ESSA plan but also in
myriad other ESSA-connected activities. The plan's design was a
collaborative effort between the Department of Education and an ESSA
Advisory Council, whose members ran the gamut from the president of the
state's superintendents' association to a Nanticoke tribe member, from
legislators to PTO officers, and from businessmen to the Executive
Director of the Latin American Community Center. Together they crafted
a plan that strikes an appropriate balance by setting a high bar to
ensure all kids receive an equitable education while making sure those
closest to students have the flexibility they need to make critical
decisions on how to reach mutually established targets.
As an example, the law makes sure every child is tested at least
once a year, but allows state and local leaders to determine the best
way to conduct those assessments. Stakeholders contributed to
Delaware's selection of Smarter Balanced as its assessment tool to
measure third through eighth graders' academic proficiency and growth.
Being concerned about the testing load for upperclassmen, they
supported the decision to administer the SAT to all eleventh graders to
fulfill the high school academic assessment requirement.
Another major stakeholder contribution was a distinct but equally
diverse committee's creation of a new statewide accountability system,
entitled the Delaware School Success Framework (DSSF). Developed by
practitioners and stakeholders, DSSF includes multiple measures of
school success rather than a single academic indicator. Included at
both the elementary and secondary levels are academic proficiency in
ELA and math and growth in ELA and math. In addition, school quality
measures include chronic absenteeism, proficiency in science and social
studies, career and college preparedness, and a 9th grader's being ``on
track'' for graduation. A further indicator of student success is the
graduation rate, which is calculated for the four-, five-, and six-year
adjusted cohort. The latter two indicators are factors solely at the
secondary level. Finally, at both levels, English Language Learners'
progress toward proficiency as documented via ACCESS 2.0 is a factor in
each school's overall ``success.'' All factors are weighted with the
academic measures comprising a greater percentage of the overall 500-
point index.
Delaware's communities were also deeply involved in the design of
new ESSA state, district, and school report cards, which will debut on
December 17th of this year. Mirroring the practice of conducting
community conversations about the ESSA plan design, a Delaware
Department of Education team held an assortment of meetings with
parents and community members throughout the state to solicit input
regarding what information they would most like displayed via the
electronic document. Participants in these sessions examined lists of
Federal and state required contents, identified which of those along
with community specific informational items warranted inclusion, and
expressed preferences for which should be featured on the main page and
which should be listed under tabs. The result of this collaborative
process, precipitated by congressional approval of ESSA, is that the
federally required report card will better reflect Delaware's community
needs than prior iterations have in the past.
Transforming State and Local Education Systems
This connectivity with stakeholders from the 98-mile stretch of
this gem of a state is only one of the noteworthy changes in what
Delaware is doing differently under ESSA. Paramount as well has been
the restructuring of our State Department of Education, which has been
transformed from a regulatory agency into a supportive one. During the
ESSA plan design, the Department adopted an icon featuring Delaware's
vision of ``Every learner ready for success in college, career and
life'' surrounded by the top priorities for the state's work--rigorous
standards, engaged community, early learning, and environments
conducive to learning. These priorities focus the Department's work to
the extent that every project and even budget decisions are strictly
guided by the citizen committees' and Department staff's established
priorities. In order to best prepare for the identification of
Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) and Targeted Support and
Improvement (TSI) schools, our agency has reorganized personnel and
responsibilities to form Academic Support, Educator Support, Student
Support, and Operational Support Teams dedicated to service to schools.
For the past eighteen months since I became Secretary, our message to
the field and education stakeholders has been, ``We are here to support
you.''
Working with Districts and State Policymakers to Improve Our Schools
Another key ESSA-related change has been the introduction of
individualized district superintendent goal-setting and summative
conferences. Soon after the verification of Smarter Balanced and SAT
results, I meet with each individual superintendent to discuss his/her
district's and schools' results. Based on the state's academic targets
for the Year 2030 (a year chosen because of the 2017 entering
kindergartners' opportunity to pass through the educational system in
the 13 years before 2030), each superintendent and I calculated the
annual growth his/her district must make in order for the state to
reach its academic goals. Recognizing his or her individual district's
contribution to the state's overall achievement, the local
superintendent in turn shares with and holds school leaders in their
home district accountable for progress toward the district's academic
goals. In addition, each superintendent selects a specific subgroup
that warrants particular attention based on performance data. During
the conferences I include such directed questions as, ``How do you plan
to increase third grade reading proficiency?'', ``What strategies to do
you have for enhancing SAT scores?'' and ``What additional supports are
you providing to your English learners?'' At mid-year we again meet to
discuss progress toward the overall goals and engage in deep
conversation about accomplishments and challenges. A final query is
always, ``What can the Department do to be of greater support?'' This
concept of superintendent accountability is a relatively new one in our
state. Yet, the overarching theme of support is being embraced from the
leadership to the local level, and ESSA has greatly facilitated this
approach.
During these conversations superintendents frequently mention
groups with which educators have not been given enough professional
learning to support. In addition to English learners, students with
disabilities and those who are economically challenged, educators have
more recently cited concerns about supporting trauma-impacted students.
As a result of these conversations, the Delaware Department of
Education is working with higher education institutions to develop a
teacher pipeline that is prepared to enter classrooms with the skills
necessary to best serve our diverse student population. These skills
include the knowledge of and experience in working with special
education students, English learners, and those who have endured
adverse childhood experiences. In fact, Delaware has launched a major
initiative to introduce teachers and administrators throughout the
state to and encourage the use of trauma-informed practices.
The refreshing change from NCLB's focus on identifying and
punishing schools to ESSA'S support model has helped to promote the
redesign of the former silos, created by individual work groups, to a
new synergetic team structure at the Department. This performance
support team is composed of professionals focused on student, educator,
and academic support focused on enhancing the overall success of
schools. The law ensures every state will focus on improving low-
performing schools, yet gives states the opportunity to work with local
educators, parents, civil rights advocates, and other stakeholders to
determine the best evidence-based strategies to improve specific
struggling schools. As Delaware fulfills the requirement of identifying
both CSI and TSI schools in November, individuals within the
performance support teams are working together to create a menu of
evidence-based available supports that can be aligned with
individualized plans developed jointly between the state and local
education agencies/charters. No longer is a single office within the
State Department of Education responsible for school improvement;
rather a team is ready to come together, across areas of expertise, in
an effort to address the specific and unique needs of each of our
schools. In the spirit of collaboration and community, my agency is
facilitating regular communication between and the solicitation of
feedback from local education agencies, charters, and multiple
stakeholder groups to build a more cohesive approach to continuous
school improvement.
Delaware's political leaders have embraced a role in our state's
school improvement movement. Recognizing the plight of the state's
struggling schools, state legislators passed a Fiscal Year 2019 (FY19)
budget that funds math specialists for our state's lowest performing
middle schools. Moreover, they allocated moneys to support the
placement of reading interventionists in the lowest performing
elementary schools. Acknowledging the impact of poverty on learning and
of the steadily expanding English learner population in the state, the
fiscal year 2019 budget also included six million dollars for
opportunity grants that were made available to the forty-four schools
whose student populations met the 60 percent poverty and/or the 20
percent English learner criteria. Both traditional and charter schools
have flexibility to invest these funds in the supports each deems most
beneficial for its students.
Ongoing ESSA Challenges
ESSA positives have been many and its negatives few. Despite
careful planning and invaluable input from a variety of interested
partners, Delaware has encountered a few challenges in implementing the
law. Our design to include science and social studies proficiency in
the academic achievement and progress sections of our accountability
system failed to receive initial approval from the US Department of
Education, even though Secretary DeVos has strongly encouraged states
to ``think out of the box.'' Consequently, we were forced instead to
relegate those two key subjects to the School Quality section of our
accountability system. A second challenge has been the unavailability
of a high school growth measure. Although we originally had hoped to
use PSAT scores as the baseline upon which to measure growth toward the
SAT, that strategy was determined to be statistically unsound so we
were unable to pursue it. A third challenge involved a volatile
reaction within our state to the proposed use of stars as a rating
symbol on the new report cards. Local legislators, for example, argued
that a two-star rating would send an unduly negative message because
``No one would stay in a two-star hotel!'' The diverse group of
stakeholders working on the project decided to use labels rather than
stars to avoid unnecessary controversy.
As Delaware journeys deeper into ESSA implementation, the
Department acknowledges that the most significant obstacle, that of
turning around our struggling schools, still lies ahead. The names of
our CSI schools will be published within the next month. My team has
been working on a plan that will emphasize the Department's provision
of necessary supports to struggling schools rather than our intent to
punish or demean them. Such an approach reflects the Department's
transformed culture, our belief in collaboration, and our realization
that each school's needs must be assessed and uniquely addressed. The
Department will provide districts with assistance in completing needs
assessments to determine possible evidence-based interventions and
strategies, thought partnerships, professional learning opportunities,
on-line resources, and connections to experts, partners, and networks.
Together we will improve outcomes for our kids.
Conclusion
Although Delaware's plan was the first to be approved, other states
have also seized the opportunity to lead the way in implementing ESSA.
As states and districts continue to advance in implementation, the
spirit of ESSA will be more fully reflected in state and local systems.
Throughout this process, educational leaders at every level are using
the flexibility in ESSA to better meet the needs of all students, from
every background. Since December 2015, states have worked hard to think
differently about their schools and how they can better serve all
students. They have asked for and taken seriously input from educators,
administrators, parents, students, and community leaders, knowing that
no plan can be successful without support and buy-in from the
community. However, since these systems are complex, only time can
reveal the benefits of full implementation.
When the Senate voted overwhelmingly to approve ESSA, it was a vote
of confidence in state and local educators and their ability to do what
is right for kids. I reiterate my gratitude for allowing us the
flexibility to implement ESSA in a way that best addresses the specific
needs of pupils in each state and request that you continue to support
us as we now fully implement the law to ensure every student's success.
I am confident that states are taking advantage of the opportunity
ESSA presents and will deliver better outcomes for all students. As
state leaders, we don't consider this a job, it's our life's work. Like
my colleagues here today, Delaware is committed to maximizing ESSA-
supported opportunities. We WILL make it happen. Our children deserve
nothing less.
______
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Bunting.
Mr. Jeffries, welcome.
STATEMENT OF SHAVAR JEFFRIES, PRESIDENT, EDUCATION REFORM NOW,
NEWARK, NJ
Mr. Jeffries. Chairman Alexander, Ranking Senator Murray,
and distinguished Members of the Committee.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you on state
implementation of Every Student Succeeds Act. My name is Shavar
Jeffries and I am President of Education Reform Now, a national
nonpartisan think tank and advocacy organization. We develop
and advocate for policies intended to transform public
education from pre-K through higher education, especially for
those students who are ESSA's intended beneficiaries.
I was born and raised in the South Ward of Newark, New
Jersey by my grandmother, a public school teacher. I have been
a civil rights lawyer and child advocate for 20 years. The
opportunities I have had are a direct result of receiving a
great education, and my life's work has been to ensure that all
of America's children have that same opportunity.
The theme of today's hearing, ``States Leading the Way,''
in too many ways remains more an expression of aspiration than
a description of fact. Some states have been leaders.
Mr. Chairman, under Governors Bredesen and Haslam, your
home State of Tennessee has advanced many important policies
that improve educational opportunities for all students.
Senator Murray, our chapter in your home State of
Washington has worked in coalition with other advocacy groups
to increase school funding, including increases in teacher pay
to help ensure every child has access to a qualified teacher.
Yet alongside these islands of progress, we still see
yawning achievement gaps that persist along lines of income,
race, nationality, and disability.
One example is Montclair High School in my home State of
New Jersey, a racially diverse school with a student population
that is half white, one-third black, one-tenth Hispanic.
Overall test scores and graduation rates for the school are
solid, yet black students among others at Montclair High lag
behind their white peers in both math and reading proficiency
by 30 percentage points and are thus significantly less likely
to graduate, and significantly, therefore, less likely to
pursue and achieve the American dream.
Nonetheless, the state's first report card under ESSA found
that black students at Montclair High were not even at risk of
being an underperforming subgroup and Montclair, sadly, is not
an isolated example.
In enacting ESSA, Congress made its purposes explicit, to
provide all children a significant opportunity to receive a
fair, equitable, and high quality education, and to close
educational achievement gaps. Congress made clear that this
educational guarantee extends to specific subgroups of students
who historically were denied that equal education opportunity,
namely, low income students, students of color, English
language learners, and children with disabilities in
particular.
While it is true Congress chose to give states significant
flexibility in fulfilling ESSA's purpose, Congress at the same
time made clear that certain guardrails were nonnegotiable.
These guardrails spelled out unequivocally in the statute
include the following:
Differentiating schools based on the performance of each of
those subgroups;
Identifying schools for targeted support and improvement
when those subgroups are not meeting state defined academic
proficiency goals;
Identifying schools for additional targeted support and
improvement when any subgroup performs at a level equal to the
bottom 5 percent of schools in the state; and,
Ensuring that all indicators in the state accountability
systems are the same statewide so that we do not have different
standards for different populations of kids.
On these and other issues, some state plans are exemplary.
The District of Columbia, for example, differentiates schools
on each indicator for each subgroup just as the statute
requires, and even goes beyond ESSA by stipulating that 25
percent of a school's rating is based on subgroup performance.
Other state plans, however, clearly violate the statute.
Arizona, for example, permits individual school districts to
choose which assessments will apply for low in performing
schools despite ESSA's specific mandate otherwise.
ESSA does broadly defer to states regarding the remedies a
district ought to use to address any achievement deficits that
are found particularly those with respect to schools that are
needing an improvement, although ESSA is clear that those
interventions ought to be evidence based.
Yet these decisions, of course, are among the most
fundamental in ensuring that ESSA's core purpose, providing a
fair, equitable, and quality education to all that will close
achievement gaps is, in fact, achieved.
We ask that as the work of this Committee continues that
you monitor this process closely in addition to those areas
where that there is a clear, explicit Federal role and consider
course corrections in those states, districts, and schools that
are falling short.
The driving purpose of Title 1 is equity. Right? That was
the entire purpose for the statute and it is incumbent upon
this Congress to work with the states to make sure that the
legacy of inequity that so many young people in this country
have experienced is remedied, and that is the bargain that the
states struck with the Federal Government in taking the
billions of dollars in Federal support. That they, in fact,
take the affirmative steps required to address the achievement
gaps that Congress was so concerned about in enacting ESSA.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jeffries follows:]
prepared statement of shavar jeffries
Introduction
Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray, and distinguished
Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify
before you today on state implementation of the Every Student Succeeds
Act (ESSA).
My name is Shavar Jeffries, and I am President of Education Reform
Now (ERN). ERN is a non-partisan think tank and advocacy organization
with a national office here in DC and chapters in eight states. We
develop and advocate for policies intended to transform public
education from pre-K through higher education, especially for those
students who are ESSA's intended beneficiaries.
I was born and raised in the South Ward of Newark, New Jersey by my
grandmother, a public-school teacher. I have been a civil rights lawyer
and child advocate for 20 years. The opportunities I have had are
directly attributable to the quality of education I received, and my
life's work has been to ensure that all American children--especially
those who come from low-income, racially diverse communities like my
own--have the same opportunity. I appear today to discuss the good work
some states are doing in meeting this challenge as well as the many
states that still have much work to do.
The Purpose of Today's Hearing
The theme of today's hearing--``States Leading the Way''--in too
many respects remains more an expression of aspiration than a
description of fact. It is true, Mr. Chairman, that some states have
been leaders. Your home state, Tennessee, has advanced policies that
ensure greater numbers of kids have access to quality schools that
achieve better outcomes for all students. Under Governor Phil Bredesen,
a Democrat, and his successor, Governor Bill Haslam, a Republican,
Tennessee has been a model for leveraging Federal initiatives and
funding streams, including President Obama's Race to the Top, in
support of its own priorities.
Likewise, Senator Murray, in your home State of Washington, our
chapter there has worked in coalition with advocates and state
legislators toward the goal of ``full funding'' for public education as
required by the state constitution. Washington has made significant
progress on funding equity and differential pay for educators so that
schools serving students with the highest needs get their fair share of
the most qualified teachers, especially those in key shortage areas
like STEM and special education, contrary to the reality in too many
states where the students most in need have teachers with the least
knowledge and expertise.
Yet alongside these islands of progress, we still see too many
states in which yawning achievement gaps persist along lines of income,
race, nationality, and disability as well as deficits in equal
educational opportunities that contradict the core purposes of ESSA.
An Example of the Importance of Subgroup Accountability at a Diverse
High School
To illustrate, let me talk to you about Montclair High School in my
home-State of New Jersey. Montclair was and remains today a racially
diverse school--half White; one-third Black; and one-tenth Hispanic.
Overall test scores and graduation rates for the school are solid, but
those overall numbers mask stark achievement gaps showing that students
at Montclair High have very different school experiences based on the
color of their skin.
The proficiency gaps between Black and White students in both
English Language Arts and Math are on the order of 30 percentage
points; Black students are five times more likely to be suspended than
White students; and Black students are substantially less likely to be
assigned to honors or Advanced Placement courses as White students. The
New Jersey State Department of Education, however, doesn't recognize
the yawning and persistent gaps at Montclair High School--where Black
students have not made significant progress and where outcomes on most
indicators last year slightly declined--as worthy of its attention. The
state's first report card issued last year under ESSA deems that Black
students at Montclair High are not even at-risk of being an
``underperforming subgroup'' let alone identify Montclair as a school
in need of what ESSA defines as ``targeted assistance.''
The Montclair example, sadly, is typical: millions of low-income
students; students of color; students who speak English as a second
language; and students with disabilities likewise experience, in too
many states, segregated educational experiences, even within the same
school, that run counter to the purposes of Federal law. For these
subgroups of students, no state is making consistent and significant
gains across all grades and subjects for the very populations of
students who historically have experienced educational inequity and
whose interests lie at the heart of Title I. Far too many states are
not even trying.
The Purpose of ESSA
In enacting ESSA, Congress made its purposes explicit:
``[T]o provide all children significant opportunity to receive
a fair, equitable, and high-quality education, and to close
educational achievement gaps.''
Congress made clear that this educational guarantee extends to
``all children''--not some; not the rich; not those well positioned to
manipulate the system--but all children. And in driving home this
equity mandate, Congress prioritized specific subgroups of students who
historically had been denied equal opportunities: low-income students;
students of color; students who speak English as a second language;
children with disabilities; and, others such as children in foster
care, those who are homeless, and the sons and daughters of migrant
workers.
What the Statute Actually Says on State Plans
In pursuing this statutory goal of providing an equitable education
to all, Congress chose to give states a great deal more flexibility.
The arguments we had within and between both political parties were
about how much flexibility to provide to states and about which
critical elements warranted Federal guardrails. Neither side got
everything they wanted. That, after all, is what's required to break
political gridlock and get things done. This was no small feat on your
part. You succeeded after several attempts in past years did not.
We and our coalition members supported the final conference report,
as did the vast majority of Members of Congress, because it included
key ``bright-line'' provisions to ensure that states and school
districts use Title I dollars to fulfill ESSA's intended purposes. The
flexibility provided to states and localities in many other areas makes
the guardrails that Congress chose and agreed to put into place of
paramount importance.
We know there are states that have avoided, in some cases defiantly
so, complying with Federal education law when it comes to almost every
group of students for whom the Federal Government has tried to level
the playing field over the past five decades, especially: girls and
women; students of color; English Language Learners; low-income
families; immigrants; and, persons with disabilities. Not too long ago,
the U.S. Secretary of Education sat before you and admitted, only
grudgingly, under questioning from Senator Murphy, that she had
previously misspoken about the responsibility of schools to educate
every child regardless of their citizenship status even though this has
been an issue of settled law for almost four decades pursuant to the
U.S. Supreme Court decision in Plyler v. Doe back in 1982.
Some States Are Not Leading the Way
The best I can say about where we are now is that when it comes to
states leading the way on ESSA, the jury is still out. But there
already have been some troubling developments.
We at ERN have put together a list of more than 30 sections of the
law that contain what we call ``bright line'' provisions where Congress
made its intent crystal clear and yet the U.S. Department of Education
approved state plans that fail to adhere to them. This is not an
exhaustive list, nor are these provisions sufficient for meeting all of
the law's stated purposes. But these are provisions that Members of the
Committee and your colleagues in both chambers deemed necessary, by
overwhelming margins. I obviously can't address all of these here
today, but they include:
Differentiating schools, in part, based on the
performance of each and every subgroup.
Identifying schools for what the statute calls
``Targeted Support and Improvement'' in cases where students in
a school are not meeting state-defined goals, regardless of how
their school is doing overall.
Identifying schools for what the statute calls
``Additional Targeted Support and Improvement'' in which any
subgroup performs at a level equal to the bottom 5 percent of
schools in the state.
Ensuring that all indicators used in state
accountability systems are the same ones used statewide, for
each and every child.
Including student attainment of grade-level
proficiency, along with academic growth, as a factor in
differentiating schools.
Some states have plans that meet or exceed one or more of these
statutory requirements. The District of Columbia, for example, has a
good plan that meets statutory requirements on differentiating schools
based on each indicator for each subgroup. The District of Columbia
actually went beyond what was required in the statute, based on
recommendations put forth by our local chapter in coalition with other
civil rights and advocacy groups, such that 25 percent of each school's
overall accountability rating will be based on subgroup performance on
each indicator.
There are also states that have plans approved by the U.S.
Department of Education that violate one or more of key statutory
provisions. It is important to note that opinions about adherence to
the law do not seem to be a matter of partisanship. Former House
Education and Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline (R-MN) went
public in August with his concerns about state plans that violated key
statutory provisions saying:
``During the eight long years our team spent working to pass this
bill, no topic was more hotly debated than that of annual testing. . .
In the end, we arrived at a fair and sensible compromise in the law:
Keep the requirement that the same academic assessments [be] used to
measure the achievement of all public elementary school and secondary
school students in the state. . . [and be flexible in other areas]. . .
However, Arizona and New Hampshire recently passed laws \1\ that
violate ESSA by permitting individual school districts to choose which
assessments to administer . . . such violations undermine ESSA in its
entirety.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Cariello, Dennis M. and Hudalla, Nicholas M. (July 2017).
Achieving a Complete Understanding of Statewide Student Academic
Achievement: The Legal Aspects Concerning State Assessment Laws in the
Every Student Succeeds Act. Retrieved from: https://edex.s3-us-west-
2.amazonaws.com/Final%207-26-17%20ESSA%20White%20Paper.pdf
\2\ Kline, John. (August 2017). An ESSA Co-Author Weighs In on
Accountability: The Ed. Department must step up to enforce ESSA.
Retrieved from: https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2017/08/28/an-essa-
co-author-weighs-in-on-accountability.html
The U.S. Secretary of Education went on to approve both of those
plans without asking these states to change their policies. On our
comprehensive list of key statutory provisions is a list of states that
have approved plans that are clearly in violation of each of the
provisions I cited and others. I cannot cover all of them in the space
allotted for my testimony but I'd be happy to discuss this further with
any of you here or after the hearing.
Keeping Our Eye on the Prize
I want to close with an additional note on an area that the law
leaves wide open and that is the types of interventions states,
districts, and schools themselves must mount under the various
categories under the law. The law lays out a fairly complicated set of
roles and responsibilities for each level of government in deciding how
to intervene in any particular school, but the law is clear that the
Federal Government has no role in making those determinations
whatsoever beyond provisions that they be ``evidence-based,'' however
states and districts choose to define that term.
I'm not going to debate the wisdom of that structure because the
law, present and past, is complicated and because of that, there are
many different interpretations of what was required prior to ESSA and
what role those requirements, or the lack thereof, played in the
success of efforts to either turn schools around or create new choices
that provide better opportunities for students and families.
At the end of the day, however, these decisions--for which, again,
it is clear, there is little to no Federal role--are the most important
ones that will be made across this country over the next several years.
History indicates that decisions will often be made based not on what
is in the best interests of students, but rather what the path of least
resistance is for those charged with carrying them out, despite
whatever good intentions they, and I'm sure my fellow panel members,
have. I ask that you at the very least monitor this process closely and
make course corrections that provide incentives--if not requirements--
for meeting the underlying purposes of the ESSA statute.
I look forward to discussing these and other issues with the
distinguished Members of this Committee today and in the future in the
hope that we, as a Nation, can work together to provide every child
with the opportunity for a world class education so that every student
truly succeeds to the utmost of his or her potential.
______
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Jeffries.
Ms. Spearman, welcome.
STATEMENT OF MOLLY SPEARMAN, SUPERINTENDENT, SOUTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, COLUMBIA, SC
Ms. Spearman. Good morning, Chairman Alexander, Ranking
Member Murray, my friend and Senator Tim Scott, and Members of
the Committee. And, if I may, a surprise guest for me this
morning, our State High School Principal of the Year, Luke
Clamp, and a finalist for the National High School Principal of
the Year.
I am very honored to have this opportunity to talk with you
today about what is going on in South Carolina. I can assure
you that I understand the rewards and challenges of serving in
the classroom as a music teacher for 18 years and a principal;
serving as a state legislator, and having to make tough policy
decisions; and now as a state elected Superintendent of
Education running an agency with 1,000 employees and trying to
show progress in a system of 780,000 students, 55,000 teachers,
1,200 schools, and a diverse 82 districts ranging from world
class communities where you have everything at your fingertips
to the rural area where I live where school is the only job in
town and Wal-Mart is about 30 miles away.
We have held over 120 ESSA stakeholder meetings in our
discussions and the message was clear. Educators complained
that they were exhausted and frustrated with the one academic
assessment model in No Child Left Behind.
Our business leaders explained to us that while we had been
working on No Child Left Behind, a whole new industry of high
skilled manufacturing jobs had arrived in South Carolina and we
had over 60,000 jobs available with very few of our students
prepared to take those jobs.
Parents said they did not understand because their students
had done very well in our elementary and high schools, and had
graduated college, but they had arrived back at home living in
the basement with no job and a lot of college debt. What had
happened? We had a big problem.
A new commitment was born. We call it the Profile of the
South Carolina Graduate. That conversation started with a group
of 12 superintendents. It quickly expanded to the State Chamber
of Commerce, local chambers, school board members, PTA members,
educators, and now it has been adopted by our General Assembly
and signed by our former Governor Nikki Haley.
It is in law and it simply means that we, in South
Carolina, are committed to supporting every student. That when
they graduate one of our high schools, that they are prepared,
not just with content knowledge, but now with the skills and
characteristics that they need to live a successful life in
their personal pathway. ESSA allowed us the flexibility to
design an accountability model that matched our profile of the
graduate.
We now use multiple measurements for college and career
readiness. We give schools credit for industry credentials,
apprenticeship programs, work-based environments, as well as
dual credit, A.P., I.B., whatever the student completes.
As a proud military state, it is now not a lesser choice,
but we recognize students who score ready on ASVAB, and those
who enlist in the military or go to a military academy.
Secondly, I am very proud that ESSA has allowed us a
renewed commitment to the areas like where I live, underserved
communities where not just education is a challenge, but jobs
are a challenge, health care is a challenge, special credit to
the Opportunity Zones championed by Senator Scott, and included
in your tax cut and job legislation.
Now, we have the Department of Commerce in our state
working side by side with us in the same communities to fix
education, but to also bring much needed jobs to the parents
and opportunities for our students in these very rural areas.
For us in South Carolina, we built a four tiered support
system for these schools. We call it communities of practice
model. We know that we are wasting our time, and energy, and
taxpayer dollars if we do not build a sustainable program in
those rural communities with capacity. So when we leave, the
work can still go on.
We use a model of transformation coaches. These highly
skilled educators are the boots on the ground in these schools
every day. They are there to give professional development.
They work side by side with the principals and the teachers to
give them the knowledge and skills that they need to serve
these students.
Recently, I was visiting one of these areas. In fact, we
are now managing three districts in South Carolina, and I asked
20 tenth graders, ``What do you want to see changed in your
schools?'' Well, the hands popped up all over and the first
young African American gentleman said, ``I want to be a welder,
but we do not have a welding program in our district.'' A young
lady said, ``I want to be a nurse, but we do not have a health
science class in our school.''
I am proud to tell you that through the flexibility
provided in ESSA funding, and our model of collaborative
support, both of those students and their classmates are now
involved in a career center. We had to move them to a nearby
district for that, but it is working. We know for those high
risk, underserved students, if we can get them involved in a
career in technology program, their graduate rate jumps to 92
percent.
As Senator Murray said, it is hard work. It is easy to say
we are going to have every child prepared, but it is hard work
and I am here to represent the people who are out there doing
that hard work every day.
We cannot do it alone as teachers. We have to have your
support. We have to have parents' support, the business
community.
I want to thank you for giving us the flexibility to do
what is needed in these individual communities. Without the
flexibility of ESSA, these triumphs that we know are going to
happen could not be. So thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Spearman follows:]
prepared statement of molly spearman
Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray, and Members of the
Committee:
Thank you for inviting me to present the opportunities the Every
Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) has allowed the State of South Carolina as
compared to No Child Left Behind (NCLB). As a former public school
music teacher and principal, I have had the experience of teaching in
some of our most affluent school districts with every resource
imaginable from keyboard labs, guitar labs, and a well-equipped theatre
to traveling 18 miles away to my home district of Saluda where I found
myself standing in an old, non-air-conditioned portable classroom with
an upright piano and had to bring my own record player. Previously
serving four terms in South Carolina's House of Representatives and now
as a statewide elected constitutional officer, I know firsthand the
challenges of ensuring every student receives the opportunities they
need and deserve through the public education system. In my current
role, I have observed and been part of the education policy pendulum
swinging back and forth over many years. This gives me the unique
opportunity to present to you the positive changes that ESSA has
afforded our state.
South Carolina previously operated under two accountability
systems--a state system and the Federal NCLB. The dual system was very
confusing in our state and was clearly not a best practice as our work
was not aligned with a single goal. With the flexibility offered under
ESSA, and the requirement of an outcomes-based system, South
Carolinians are now united in our efforts and our commitment to
accountability is clear. We measure how well all of our schools are
doing in preparing every graduate for college-and career-readiness and
citizenship, and we shine a light on areas where we need to improve to
ensure achievement gaps are not masked or ignored. All of our work is
centered on the Profile of the South Carolina Graduate, a document,
which outlines the knowledge, skills, life, and career characteristics
that every graduate should possess. This work began with a group of
district superintendents and quickly grew to involve the South Carolina
Chamber of Commerce and adoption by education stakeholder groups and
local school boards prior to being put into statute by South Carolina's
General Assembly and signed by then Governor Nikki Haley. Another
important change for South Carolina made possible by ESSA is the use of
multiple measures--not just the ``bubble-in'' assessments required
under NCLB. This holistic approach creates a common-sense
accountability system that considers all important factors and gives
schools credit for performance outside of just one high-stakes test,
all while ensuring meaningful goals and targeted supports for all
schools.
This change has ushered in the addition of a student academic
progress, or growth model, as an indicator in our accountability
system. Currently, we are using the Education Value-Added Assessment
System (EVAAS) for grades 3-8 in English language arts and mathematics.
We believe that using an academic progress measure is fair and a
motivation for teachers who often find students at very different
levels of readiness in their classrooms.
After robust discussion that included statewide town hall meetings,
webinars, and public hearings, South Carolina chose to include a
positive and effective learning environment as a measure of school
performance at the high school level. Stakeholder feedback involving
students, parents, and education advocates, such as members of the
Columbia Urban League and South Carolina Council for Exceptional
Children, who strongly suggested a focus on improving the climate of
schools through safe, healthy, and positive environments. Currently,
surveys are being used to fulfill the reporting requirements. Our
stakeholders feel strongly that initiatives addressing character
building, leadership development, creativity, and the arts must be a
part of a successful school. We recognize our ESSA plan currently only
requires this to be measured at the high school level. We are committed
to working with parents and educators to find a path forward to reflect
this priority in other grade levels in the future.
Hearing from small businesses, local and state chambers of
commerce, and military liaisons, South Carolina recognized the
importance of students being prepared for both college and the
workforce in our ESSA plan. Our approach to ESSA incentivizes career
readiness, as schools are rewarded for supporting and preparing
students in work-ready skills. South Carolina high schools are awarded
points for career readiness based on student completion of an
apprenticeship, work-based learning opportunity, career program
pathway, industry credential, or a silver rating or above on a career
readiness assessment. We are proud that our system also recognizes
military service readiness through success on the Armed Services
Vocational Aptitude Battery, or ASVAB.
Officials at the United States Department of Labor have
continuously recognized South Carolina as a national leader in
apprenticeship programs, with over 226 programs that are youth-
specific. Recently, two young men completed a mechanics apprenticeship
at their local school bus shop--the first of its kind in the Nation.
Upon high school graduation, they both have a high-skilled, well-paying
manufacturing career awaiting them: one working full-time at BMW and
another working part-time at a diesel engine plant while the company
pays for him to obtain his technical college degree. Stories like these
are proliferating across our state because our ESSA accountability
system supports the needs and possibilities of the South Carolina
workforce.
Continuing the focus of NCLB upon student subgroups, our ESSA plan
requires that we must keep our focus on and serve all students. We are
keenly aware of the importance of understanding and addressing both the
barriers and successes of our most vulnerable students and subgroups in
South Carolina. We have increased transparency in subgroup reporting by
lowering the masking threshold (or n count) to 20. This will increase
the visibility of subgroups in schools where none had been previously
identified under NCLB. This, in conjunction with the increased
accountability reporting, will shine a light on the performance of the
subgroups across all metrics in the accountability system. South
Carolina will continue to account for the performance of student
subgroups in its identification of schools in need of targeted support
and improvement.
In South Carolina, schools identified as Targeted Support and
Improvement (TSI) Schools will consist of any school with a
``consistently underperforming'' student subgroup that has performed at
or below all students at the bottom 10 percent of schools statewide,
across all indicators, for three consecutive years. This strategy
captures more students than ESSA requires.
Schools with the lowest performing subgroups will be identified for
Additional Targeted Support and Intervention (ATSI) if the scores of
any subgroup(s) are lower than the ``all students'' performance of the
highest ranking Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) School. In
other words, when a subgroup performance mirrors that of the lowest 5
percent of schools in our state, we will work closely with every
district to intervene and provide technical assistance. From these
schools that are identified as ATSI, schools identified as having a
``chronically low-performing'' student subgroup(s) across all
accountability indicators for two consecutive identification cycles, or
6 years, will then be moved from targeted support to our CSI category.
Our expectation is not only for districts and schools to address the
performance of these subgroups, but to sustain their improvement over
time, giving these students an equal opportunity to meet the vision for
every student in our state found in the Profile of the South Carolina
Graduate. Measuring the performance of subgroups across all
accountability metrics will emphasize South Carolina's commitment to
excellence for all students.
One important strategy we have implemented to support our lowest-
performing schools is the development of a team of transformation
coaches to build capacity and provide targeted assistance in the
schools that need it most. Transformation coaches support South
Carolina's educators and school leaders by being ``boots on the
ground'' daily in our lowest performing schools to strategically guide
their efforts. These coaches, who are fully funded by and employees of
the state, range from a former national principal of the year to strong
classroom and district award-winning leaders. They are selected based
on their content experience and leadership qualities to be agents of
support and change. They truly have answered the call to serve in our
most underprivileged areas, often times located in rural communities
nearly 40 miles from the nearest Walmart.
In South Carolina, we strongly believe schools will only be able to
achieve excellence when the performance of all students, including
those in historically underserved subgroups, meet expectations. This
also gives us a unique opportunity to blend our efforts, particularly
for students with disabilities, in a braided approach with our work
under both ESSA and IDEA.
As an example of our commitment to high standards and
accountability, the state recently took over management of three school
districts in South Carolina. One of those, Florence School District
Four, is a very small, rural, high poverty district where students were
performing at the lowest levels in our state and had little opportunity
for career skill development. The district was financially unstable and
the future was bleak at best for these students. Now under state
management, a new model of shared services is underway. We have
contracted with two neighboring school districts to provide district
level functions at a cost-savings of over $600,000, representing a 50
percent administrative cost reduction for the district. These savings
are being pushed down to the classroom to provide more opportunities
for these rural students. I visited the district's high school in May
right before the state-takeover and asked a group of students what they
needed in their school. The first hand was from a 16-year-old male
student who said, ``I want to be a welder, but we have no welding
program.'' Another student, young lady said, ``I want to be a nurse,
but we have no health science equipment.'' One of my proudest
achievements is that these young people are enrolled this year in
welding and health science, in addition to the challenging academic
content that all students receive.
On behalf of my staff at the South Carolina Department of
Education, I commend your congressional staff and the staff at the
United States Department of Education as both have been extremely
responsive to our questions and needs. Participating in the U.S.
Department of Education State Support Network, as well as supports
provided by the Council of Chief State School Officers, have been very
helpful as we designed and are now implementing our ESSA plan.
Finally, I want to thank each of you for your service to the
students, parents, and educators in South Carolina and across our
country. As a former legislator, I also appreciate the role this
Committee plays in monitoring the progress of this new law and how it
is being implemented across states. ESSA has moved the education
pendulum in the right direction of accountability, support, creativity,
and flexibility which benefits everyone. Thank you.
______
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Spearman.
We welcome the South Carolina Principal of the Year.
Ms. Spearman. Thank you.
The Chairman. We will go to Senator Scott.
Senator Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to the panel for being here and Molly, good to
see you again.
Ms. Spearman. Good to see you.
Senator Scott. I hope you are doing well.
Ms. Spearman. I did not see you come in.
Senator Scott. Yes, ma'am. I am sorry I missed your opening
comments. I was not here for the beginning of the Committee. I
was in my Armed Services Committee where we are working on a
couple of nominations as well.
But I did want to say about Molly Spearman, our amazing
Superintendent of Education, that your dedication and
commitment to public service is unrivaled. Your passion for
education is, perhaps, a place where I would like to reinforce
your commitment to public service.
I know that when you started from your farm in Saluda
County.
Ms. Spearman. Dairy farm. Yes, sir.
Senator Scott. The more I think about farmers, the more I
realize that the day does not start at 7:30, or 8:30, or 9:30,
but your day starts at 4:30 or 5:00.
That work ethic that you learned on the farm certainly has
transferred into your passion and your desire to serve people
in the public forum. And that your commitment to education is
not simply a commitment as the Superintendent of Education.
It started as a teacher having a positive interaction and a
passion, a love for children reinforced that commitment. And
then as the assistant principal, your ability to see from a
management perspective how to engage the students, how to
engage their parents, and how to make sure that everybody was a
part of the glue that makes schools work.
Then as a legislator, serving in the State House, God bless
your soul for that.
Ms. Spearman. Amen.
Senator Scott. I only served one term; that was enough for
me, but it is really hard work, important work that you were
inspired to focus your attention even as a state legislator on
education, on making sure that the quality of life experienced
by your kids throughout the state would be benefited and
impacted positively by your service.
Now, certainly, as a Superintendent of Education, you
continue an amazing career in public service. So thank you very
much for representing kids so well. Thank you very much for
representing parents and the passion that they have for their
own children so well. And thank you so much for being an
amazing example of what South Carolina produces.
Ms. Spearman. Thank you.
Senator Scott. My question for you, I will start off with
the issue that you mentioned, and thank you for mentioning the
Opportunity Zones in your opening comments.
One of the things that I had in mind when I designed the
opportunity zoning legislation was finding a way to bring more
resources into distressed communities so as to make sure that
those kids, kids like myself--when I was a 7-year-old kid
living in single parent household disillusioned--that there
would be the type of resources that would allow for me to see
the full expression of my capacity. I think that school
construction, seeing that as a real opportunity in Opportunity
Zones, I hope it manifests.
Can you speak at all about the passing of the tax
legislation, providing more resources, and how schools, or the
charter schools or private schools, would benefit from that?
Ms. Spearman. Yes, sir, and thank you for your kind
remarks. And likewise, we are very proud of your service.
I want to thank you because I know that you take time to go
and visit schools whenever you are home, and it means so much
because you are an inspiration to many of our students.
You are right. Education cannot solve the problems in some
of these distressed communities alone, but when I go and visit
there, the most precious, well-mannered children with dreams
some of them have never seen all the jobs that are available.
The other ``Ah-ha!'' that has come to me that when I have
business leaders come in to me or if it is health care folks to
say where they feel like they need to go and work, as with the
Department of Commerce in South Carolina, and when they put the
map down, it is the exact same place where the education
challenges are.
We are working very closely with the Department of
Commerce. They are there in Timmonsville, which is a small,
rural area in Florence County. We have a renewed relationship
now with a Honda factory that has moved in.
Senator Scott. Yes.
Ms. Spearman. They are opening up apprenticeships or
internship programs for students to go in and not only see the
jobs and the teachers to see the jobs, but experiment with
those. So it gives hope and that is what I see in these
students.
But the other thing, Senator, that I see is that ESSA has
allowed us to make work a cool thing again. We had gone, the
pendulum, so far that everything was based on a college
entrance exam, and that is great for many people.
But we need workers who show up to work on time. We need
workers who can get along with each other working along with
our business and industry. That is what I see has improved so
much with ESSA, and designed into our accountability model, and
goes hand in hand with what is going on in our Opportunity
Zones.
Senator Scott. Thank you.
The Chairman has been kind enough to extend me an extra
minute. I appreciate that, sir.
The Chairman. Well, sure.
[Laughter.]
Senator Scott. Thank you.
The Chairman. Then I will have to give Senator Murray an
extra minute.
Senator Scott. We talked about the importance of bringing
more resources into distressed communities. We talked about the
power of ESSA to have more flexibility without any question.
When we look in South Carolina and Orangeburg specifically,
we have a charter school there, the High School for Health
Professionals in Orangeburg. It is in an economically
distressed community. But what we are seeing here is that in a
distressed community, where I believe that your ZIP Code should
not determine the quality of your education, we are seeing
specifically the exact opposite that we have heard about
throughout the country, and specifically home in South
Carolina.
We are seeing, in 2017, 100 percent graduation rates, 100
percent college or military acceptance rates, and 70 percent of
the students went into college with some type of scholarship.
This is the kind of success we need everywhere around the
country and you are highlighting a part of what makes that
possible at home in South Carolina.
I know you are a Bearcat and so as a Lander University
Bearcat, you cannot go to Lander University if you do not
finish high school.
Ms. Spearman. Right.
The Chairman. We will be glad to have a second round of
questions, if you will state your question and then we will go
to Senator Murray.
Senator Scott. Thank you very much.
How does our plan enable growth among successful charter
schools like the High School for Health Professionals and how
can we foster increased enrollment in, and replication of,
successful schools?
The Chairman. Senator Scott can ask that----
Senator Scott. For the record.
The Chairman. ----For the record----
Senator Scott. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. ----Or he can come back in a second round. I
will be glad to give him plenty of time to ask it.
Senator Scott. Thank you for your indulgence.
The Chairman. We have other Senators waiting.
Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank
all of our panelists today.
Mr. Jeffries, let me start with you. For over a year, I
have raised concerns about Secretary DeVos' implementation of
ESSA, specifically approving state plans that do not comply
with all of the law's equity guardrails, including the subgroup
accountability and school identification. The law really is a
series of building blocks, each phase provides a foundation for
the next phase of implementation.
If in Phase 1, State Plan Approvals, if it is flawed and
implemented incorrectly, that flawed implementation will then
necessarily impact the implementation of the next phase of the
law, which is School Improvement.
Talk to us about how the failure to correctly implement
subgroup accountability and school identification impacts
school improvement, and what that means for students who are
sitting in our classrooms today.
Mr. Jeffries. Thank you, Senator.
That failure fundamentally defeats the core purposes of
ESSA. Congress was very clear and explicit. That is saying that
the foundational purposes of ESSA were to ensure that all
children have a significant opportunity for a fair, equitable,
and quality education that closes achievement gaps. States
simply cannot close achievement gaps if they do not even know
they exist.
To ensure that this was not the case, Congress was very
explicit to say there must be subgroup differentiation by the
core subgroups for which we have had a long history, sadly,
where certain populations of young people simply have not had
access to educational equity. That is low income children,
children who speak English as a second language, children of
color, children with disabilities.
We have many states that simply have decided not to comply
with that mandate. We have some states that simply do not
differentiate by subgroups at all. We have some states, like
Arizona, that differentiates by subgroups in Grades 3 through
8, but not in high school.
We have several states--Connecticut and Massachusetts,
Mississippi and New Mexico--that have what we call ``super
subgroups''. They just group all four subgroups into one
omnibus subgroup, which means those states have no capacity to
differentiate based on disaggregated data about whether some of
those subgroups do well or not.
Senator Murray. Correct.
Mr. Jeffries. In any event, without the subgroup data then
you cannot then craft remedies that are tailored to the
particular deficits that need to be addressed.
Senator Murray. Thank you. I think that outlines it
exactly. I really appreciate that.
Let me talk about another issue that is really important to
me. It is important to me as a mother, as a grandmother, as a
former preschool teacher, as a United States Senator, and that
is the issue of gun violence.
I believe that Congress was very clear when we passed the
bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act that the Title IV Part A
program was intended to be used for purposes like helping more
children get access to mental health care or providing
additional programming in STEM or the arts. Not for purchasing
weapons.
As I said in my opening statement, unfortunately Secretary
DeVos is ignoring our intention and allowing states and school
districts to purchase firearms and firearm training, actually,
with ESSA funds.
Mr. Jeffries, I wanted to ask you, can you tell me about
some of the consequences, including for students and for staff,
when firearms are brought into school buildings?
Mr. Jeffries. Well, absolutely.
First Title IV, as the Senator pointed out, is designed to
ensure that kids are actually educated well so that core
educational services in particular in Title 1 schools, kids are
often now going without: going without access to STEM support,
going without access to technological supports, going without
access to mental health and other types of services, services
that they do not already have enough money for. So to divert
money into sending teachers to gun ranges really is
preposterous.
The idea that we are going to have untrained teachers
walking around schoolhouses and not using Title 1 dollars to
learn how to teach Fifth Grade fractions better, but to go to
gun ranges and to see if they can figure out whether they are
capable of wielding firearms in a school building really just
feels absurd on its face.
We see in so many instances that trained security personnel
too often are shooting unarmed people unjustifiably.
The idea that teachers--who really do not have free time
and oftentimes are underpaid and have their hands full with the
professional development support they need so they can actually
teach better--we are going to send them for some random number
of hours to gun ranges, and believe they will then be equipped
with the capacities they need to know when to shoot, when not
to shoot when children are in a school building and parents
have to drop their kids off at the school. So this is not a
situation when in their private capacity, people can decide to
wield firearms. Parents have to take their kids to school.
The idea that untrained teachers who are not security
professionals will be armed really just feels absurd on its
face and it will also pose a very present danger to our young
people.
Senator Murray. The other side of that question is what are
some of the programs that would not be funded if this money was
taken away for arms training?
Mr. Jeffries. Well, there are a range of services that
Title IV funds from computer science programs, music, art,
STEM, extended learning time, personalized learning, which is a
very important approach that many school districts are going to
now.
The core educational services in Title 1 schools, schools
are already struggling to meet and already do not have the
resources to meet. The idea that we would divert precious and
scarce resources to arming teachers is not only a bad policy,
but it would contradict the equity mandates in ESSA.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. My time
is up.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murray.
I want to get pretty quickly to the question of school
report cards, but I want to briefly respond to a couple of
comments Senator Murray had.
I am glad to continue to visit with her about the question
of whether Secretary DeVos is following the law in implementing
the subgroups. The Senator raised that last January. Secretary
DeVos offered to meet with us.
I met with her and career lawyers from both the Trump and
who formerly worked with the Obama administration, consulted
with the congressional Research Service, and I believe that she
is exactly following the law in those cases.
She is still willing to meet with Senator Murray or other
Senators who would like to meet with her to discuss that. I
think we have a difference of opinion in reading the law.
In terms of the waivers, there have been 23 waivers under
the disability provision. They are granted according to a
regulation that was guidance that was created during the Obama
administration. They all, or most all, last for 1 year so that
the state may implement those provisions, and that waiver
provision is within the 2015 ESSA law.
As far as guns go, arming teachers, I am not a fan of
arming teachers, although the National Center for Education
Statistics says 43 percent of schools do have armed school
personnel.
As I read the law, Title IV specifically gives states the
decision about spending their money to create safe conditions
including drug and violence prevention.
The other law, Senator Hatch's provision, the Stop Violence
in School Act, was a different provision under the Department
of Justice where that funding is and it specifically says in
that law that it is not to preclude any other provision of law
authorizing provision of firearms or training in the use of
firearms.
Now, let me go to each of you and ask you about school
report cards. One of the most offensive parts of No Child Left
Behind to me was that we seemed to catch schools doing things
wrong. There was a management book that was about catching
people doing things right as a good principle of management,
but we had this failing school designation which showed up in
the newspapers, and it offended teachers, and discouraged
people all across the board.
The new law does not have a provision about what kind of
school report card you should have. It does say that you should
collect the data, these aggregated subgroups, and make it
public. But each of you has, in different ways, created reports
of what you are doing.
In Delaware, there are scores of zero to 500 points and
three categories. In Nebraska, you have excellent, great, good,
or needs improvement. In South Carolina, you have excellent,
good, average, below average, and unsatisfactory.
Tell me your thoughts, if you can succinctly, about why you
chose those labels and how you are avoiding the discouraging
label of ``failing school''?
Mr. Blomstedt.
Dr. Blomstedt. Yes, in our case, we had several different
conversations with our State Board of Education. We actually
brought in folks from an assessment perspective in looking at
how we would define our particular schools.
We were actually somewhat, on some fronts, criticized for
having a feeling like that is a positive skewed one. But I will
tell you from our schools is they know what excellent is. They
know what great is. They know what good is.
What we are very worried about is providing the resources
and support for those schools that fall in needs and permitted.
So we had serious conversations about those particular labels
and what they would mean for our schools.
The Chairman. Ms. Bunting.
Dr. Bunting. We have a philosophy of the people, by the
people, and for the people and our report cards clearly reflect
that.
We have held a number of community conversations throughout
the state, and it has been our stakeholders that have been able
to guide us on what they would like to see in a report card.
We are very transparent. We will report on subgroup data.
We crunch that data, and we are very attuned to the performance
and the gaps, and that will be made public for people to see.
But we are highly engaged with our public in designing the
exact features of that report card, and the labels that are
used, and the method that has been designed to get them.
The Chairman. Ms. Spearman, you have about 25 seconds.
Ms. Spearman. Yes, sir.
In South Carolina, we believe that words do matter. So we
did try to find some encouragement for schools in what they
were doing. We have a system that is a 100 point system. We are
reporting on a very transparent report card that is very easy
to understand by parents, I believe.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Bennet.
Senator Bennet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to the panel and for all you do for education.
I first want to ask whether there is anybody on the panel
who believes that we should be spending Federal education
dollars to arm teachers in our schools?
Dr. Bunting. In Delaware, that has not been a major topic
of discussion, but actually our teachers union has come out
against it. Our Governor is strongly against it. It is not
getting traction and we have other ways. We are very concerned
about school safety, but we are looking at other ways to make
sure that that happens.
Dr. Blomstedt. I would say in Nebraska's case, we have had
no serious conversations at all about trying to use Federal
funds for that approach, and I would not support that.
Ms. Spearman. South Carolina, we are putting our focus on
mental health counselors, school resource officers, and
training of teachers.
Senator Bennet. Thank you for that testimony.
Mr. Jeffries said earlier that the whole purpose of Title 1
was equity, and I believe that too.
In fact, I do not think that--as a former school
superintendent myself of the Denver public schools--I do not
think that there is any reason for the Federal Government to be
involved in this except for the civil rights issues.
As all of you know, it is sad to say this and politicians
do not like to say this, but it is sad to say that among
wealthy countries in the world, we have some of the lowest
economic mobility in our country of any country in the world,
developed country in the world. The highest income inequality
of any developed country in the world and the exception to that
are people that get a quality education.
The exception to the idea that your parents' income
determines your income, that your parents' income exactly
determines the quality of the education you can get are people
who managed to get through somehow, like Mr. Jeffries talked
about how he got through.
I would be curious what each of you is doing in your states
to take on this equity issue that Mr. Jeffries raised. Not just
how you are spending your Title 1 money, but what are you doing
to make sure the most qualified teachers are teaching the
poorest kids? That the poorest kids have access to the highest
quality curriculum, or to A.P. tests, that we are getting them
through high school and into college?
With that, I will yield the balance of my time. Mr.
Blomstedt, please take it.
Dr. Blomstedt. Yes, first of all, thanks for that question.
I think for us, we have outlined a series of equity
commitments from the Department of Education that go beyond,
certainly beyond the requirements of ESSA and thinking about,
``How are we going to get to each one of those students and
make sure that they have the resources necessary to be
successful?''
When we are looking at our schools that need improvement
and fall into that category, we are looking at specific
interventions that are going to make a difference for them.
I think, in particular, our work around thinking how we get
the best teachers in these classrooms is absolutely important,
absolutely critical. Thinking about how we support leaders that
understand, building level leaders that understand what quality
instruction looks like for all students. We get worried about
things like the disproportionate discipline and other things
that occur.
We are looking at a whole bunch of different factors to
make sure that we are changing our system to serve that equity
need.
Dr. Bunting. I can echo his statements and I would like to
add that equity access is one of our main priorities under
ESSA. We are doing a great deal, even to train our whole
department, on equity issues and trying to diversify our
workforce.
Our state legislature is so dedicated to this cause that it
has actually passed a law that we are to provide loan
forgiveness for teachers who will go into the lowest performing
schools, and they will be rewarded for taking that step.
Ms. Spearman. One of the things that we are doing on the
reality of finding bodies to go to some of these neglected
communities, South Carolina runs a virtual school program where
it is the fifth largest in the country. It is offered free to
all of our schools, private and also homeschooled students with
really high quality instruction. All of the A.P. courses are
offered. So wherever you live, you can get high quality
instruction.
The other thing that we are doing and taking very seriously
in our four tiered level of support to the fourth tier, which
is management of school districts. We are currently managing
three districts.
For us, it was not just the quality teacher, but it was
actually having school boards that were doing the right thing
for children and supporting the leadership in the community to
the point where I had to go in and take the authority away from
those school board members. We are running those districts with
folks on the ground and appointing new leadership in those
communities.
It is a system and if one part of the system is broken, if
the people do not select really good leadership at the school
board level, it will not work either. So it goes down to that
level for us.
Senator Bennet. Mr. Jeffries, I have 15 seconds left. Was
there anything you would like to add on this equity point?
Mr. Jeffries. Well, I would just add that this is not an
area where you get an ``A'' for effort. So it is great that
many states have a variety of initiatives, but that is
precisely why the accountability mandate is so important, that
the evidence has to actually show that these subgroups of kids
actually are being prepared for their future.
Senator Bennet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Bennet.
Senator Murphy.
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for being here today. Thank you for your
commitment to America's children. Thank you for your very
straightforward answer to Senator Bennet's question regarding
the efficacy of arming our teachers.
It will not surprise you to know that I disagree with
Senator Alexander with respect to the ability that the
Secretary has to allow Title IV funds to be used to arm
teachers. There is, in fact, in Title IV a specific permissive
use of those funds for violence prevention.
In that section of the statute, it allows for those funds
to be used under Title IV for violence prevention so long as
they are used to build weapons for these schools. That, to me,
would suggest that it was the clear intent of those who wrote
the bill on this Committee to deny the use of those funds to
arm our teachers.
Notwithstanding, as Senator Alexander notes, that there are
certainly armed security officers in these schools, as has been
the practice for a long time. I frankly wish that we had the
Secretary of Education here or at least a representative of the
Secretary of Education so we could have a conversation about
how and why they are interpreting that statute in the way that
they are.
I look forward to continuing that discussion.
I only have one additional question on this topic and I
think I can probably guess the answer given your response to
Senator Bennet's question.
Are any of you aware of any data that suggest arming our
teachers makes our schools safer?
Ms. Spearman. I am not aware of any data.
Dr. Bunting. I am not aware of it either.
Dr. Blomstedt. Nor am I. I am not aware of it.
Senator Murphy. Mr. Jeffries, you work with a lot of
schools that are located in areas where there are high rates of
gun violence.
Is the problem in those neighborhoods, and in the places
around those schools, that there are not enough guns?
Mr. Jeffries. Absolutely not, Senator. Absolutely not.
Senator Murphy. I will put this topic to bed because I like
the place that we are on this panel, and I appreciate your
answers to the question.
I also agree with Senator Murray's concerns around the way
in which this administration is failing to enforce many of the
accountability metrics. I do not think we would have written
four different subgroups; I know we would not have written four
different subgroups into the accountability title in the law if
we did not expect schools to actually measure and report on all
four of those subgroup categories.
But we also required that to the extent that whether in the
subgroups or in the schools writ large if schools are not
meeting the expectations that you set, that you will provide
for evidence-based strategies to turn those schools around.
One of the other concerns that we have is that Secretary
DeVos has not required that states show that they are investing
in evidence-based measures. And that was a really important
phrase in that law to make sure that you are not just
repainting the walls in the school and claiming that it is an
intervention. That you are actually using what works to turn
around performance for disabled kids, or for minority kids, or
for English language learners.
Let me just leave this as the last question.
What do evidence-based interventions mean to you as school
chiefs? What do you use to draw upon to make sure that you are
not just doing something that sounds good, but that you are
actually doing something that works when you are trying to
serve these populations of kids?
Dr. Bunting. We like to experiment with something, pilot a
program, for example, and keep the data to show that it is
making a difference at reducing the gap between our groups.
We have also case formed our department and have a student
support team that truly concentrates on just such supports. We
are there providing that to go out to schools.
I also meet with each superintendent from our districts and
look at subgroup data and ask about what they are doing for the
various subgroups, and I do that several times a year.
Senator Murphy. Can I press you on that for a moment
because you said that you like to experiment? But would not the
language of the statute which requires you to use evidence-
based interventions mean that you are not free to experiment?
You actually have to use interventions that have proof of
concept already.
Dr. Bunting. Correct. And then we pilot them in certain
districts and follow-up. If it works, then we hopefully have
tried them in districts that are diverse within the state and
we can actually then make statements, ``This is a very
worthwhile effort. We would like to see you implement it in
your school.''
We do have local control, but we also have a menu of
evidence-based practices to recommend.
Senator Murphy. Ten seconds, Mr. Blomstedt.
Dr. Blomstedt. Yes, so thanks. We put something in there we
call an evidence-based analysis in our school improvement
process, and we are going to include that as part of our
ongoing school improvement and accreditation process in
addition to the accountability side. So that is our approach.
Senator Murphy. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Ms. Spearman, did you want to answer his
question?
Ms. Spearman. For us, it means that we do not just say,
``Tell us how you are going to fix yourself,'' anymore. There
are strings attached to the funding.
We do have, in fact, we are finding that a very concrete,
research-based system for most of these school districts is
very simply that we need to tell them, ``This is how you need
to do it.''
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murphy.
Senator Cassidy.
Senator Cassidy. Hello to you all.
Ms. Spearman, my mother is from Camden, South Carolina and
I am just listening to you speak, and I am just thinking of my
Aunt Lucille. So thank you for bringing a great memory.
Folks on this panel know that I am very interested in
dyslexia. It affects one in five of our students. Here is an
article from ``The Journal of Pediatrics,'' again showing that
the problem of dyslexia can be found as early as first grade.
If you do not screen, if we do, ``Wait a second, they
cannot read by third,'' well then, it is lost because you learn
to read by Grade 4 and then you read to learn, but by that
time, you have not learned to read.
Let me just ask, not you, Mr. Jeffries because you are the
advocate, if I will, but of those who are the educational
directors, what are you all specifically doing to screen for
dyslexia? At what age do you begin to screen? And then after
having screened, what is your approach to address the issue?
Mr. Blomstedt.
Dr. Blomstedt. Yes, thank you. Actually we just had a
pretty thorough discussion with our legislature this past
legislative session on something we are calling the Nebraska
Reading Improvement Act and actually implementing some
assessments, kindergarten through Second Grade and then into
Third Grade.
Looking at what gaps there are in assessing a student's
ability to read and where they are at, and addressing dyslexia
among other things. Making sure that we have a fairly sweeping
opportunity to analyze where every student is and really
working with school districts to do that.
Senator Cassidy. How are you screening?
Dr. Blomstedt. Yes, I am probably not going to do good on
the various tests, but there are different tests that we are
looking at, and actually some that we are having to recommend
across the state. So we will actually have a set of recommended
assessments.
Senator Cassidy. This is a work in progress.
Dr. Blomstedt. Yes, it is. It is, right.
Senator Cassidy. If a child screens positively for at risk
for dyslexia, what then is done?
Dr. Blomstedt. The expectation is that any student that
would actually screen for dyslexia, there would be appropriate
strategies put in place for that individual.
Senator Cassidy. Any elaboration on what that strategy is?
Dr. Blomstedt. I probably will not do as well at the
specific strategies, but that is the intent that every school
would have a strategy behind it.
Senator Cassidy. Ms. Bunting.
Dr. Bunting. That is true in Delaware as well, and it
depends on the student's exact strengths and weaknesses as we
test for the dyslexia.
Senator Cassidy. What grade level do you screen and is that
screening universal?
Dr. Bunting. It is universal. We have an observational set
of efforts first and then beyond that, in kindergarten, for
example.
Senator Cassidy. Now, let me ask because most
kindergarteners do not read.
Dr. Bunting. Correct.
Senator Cassidy. When you say ``observational,'' what is
being observed?
Dr. Bunting. There are certain habits, certain practices,
reversal of letters and things of that nature that begin to
make you question if there might be some dyslexia involved.
There is great conversation between the reading specialist,
and most schools have a reading specialist. They also have
reading interventionists.
Senator Cassidy. Is it more the observation than it is a
formal screening process?
Dr. Bunting. As you become first graders and second
graders, it becomes more formal as far as the identification.
Senator Cassidy. Can I ask what that formal process is?
Dr. Bunting. There are tests that are used and I am not, at
this moment, able to tell you the exact name of the test that
is used in each case, but our reading specialists in the
schools have a variety.
Senator Cassidy. Now, if a child screens positively--I have
limited time, I do not mean to be rude--if a child screens
positive for being at risk, what is then done with she or he?
Dr. Bunting. The reading interventionist may be working
with that child. We also have a multi-tiered system of support
that we provide.
Senator Cassidy. Now, is this the so-called R.T.I.? Or is
this something which is more----
Dr. Bunting. It is much broader than that, and then we
actually, as I mentioned, have reading specialists in each of
our schools who will either directly provide services to
students or they may give certain tactics to be used in the
classroom depending on the child's degree of need.
Senator Cassidy. Ms. Spearman?
Ms. Spearman. In South Carolina, we are in our fourth year
of legislation called Read to Succeed, which means that every
teacher, including P.E. and music teachers, have to have an
additional add-on certificate in their tools of how to teach
reading.
Just last year, we passed dyslexia legislation that does
require screening in K and first grade. It is done three times.
Senator Cassidy. What grades is this?
Ms. Spearman. Kindergarten and first grade.
Senator Cassidy. That is great.
Ms. Spearman. We do----
Senator Cassidy. That is universal?
Ms. Spearman. Yes, sir. And we have training modules for
our teachers where they are now----
Senator Cassidy. Can you share the results? Do you have
those at the top of your head, if you will, what percent of
your children are screening at risk?
Ms. Spearman. This is our first year going into that.
Senator Cassidy. Got it.
Ms. Spearman. But I can get you any other information that
we might have, but we have really been working to make sure.
Because our teachers were neither equipped with the tools
needed to address dyslexia nor other reading problems as well.
Senator Cassidy. I may have questions for the record. I am
out of time.
Ms. Spearman. Yes, sir.
Senator Cassidy. A real shout out. My wife has started a
public charter school for children with dyslexia, but has
worked with a school near Clemson, which is also a public
charter school in South Carolina, for those with dyslexia.
Ms. Spearman. If I may, we also have a tax credit that
families can take advantage of called Exceptional SC where
children, if you are not being served in the public school, and
if there is a private school that can help your child, those
children can go tuition-free.
We have a dyslexia focused school, private schools across
the state where families can attend those as well.
Senator Cassidy. Thank you all.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cassidy.
Senator Warren.
Senator Warren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I just want to join my colleagues who have expressed
concern with allowing school districts to use Federal education
dollars to buy guns for their teachers.
Now, many public schools in this country cannot afford
school nurses, guidance counselors, or basic classroom supplies
for their students.
Allowing schools to use scarce Federal dollars to put guns
in classrooms is an idea that is dangerous and dumb, and it
clearly was not our intent when we wrote ESSA.
I want to thank all the moms and friends of moms who are
here this morning to remind Congress that we do not work for
the N.R.A. We work for the people.
I am here to talk about how states are implementing ESSA,
and I am going to submit questions for the record on
accountability provisions in the law.
But last week, we marked the one-year anniversary of
Hurricanes Maria and Irma, which absolutely devastated Puerto
Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
The Puerto Rican government recently revised its death toll
to 2,975 American citizens who lost their lives due to Maria
and its aftermath. That makes it the deadliest natural disaster
in modern American history.
We also know that this storm had ripple effects all across
the country, displacing tens of thousands of children and
families, sending many students who were not able to stay on
the island to new schools all across the country.
Just by a show of hands, how many of you absorbed students
from Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands into your school
systems last year?
[Hands raised by Dr. Bunting and Ms. Spearman.]
Senator Warren. Secretary Bunting, how many displaced
students did Delaware take in?
Dr. Bunting. Approximately 100.
Senator Warren. About 100.
Dr. Bunting. About 100.
Senator Warren. Superintendent Spearman, how about South
Carolina, about how many students?
Ms. Spearman. Fifty.
Senator Warren. You had about 50.
Superintendent Spearman, do you expect more students this
year because of Hurricane Florence?
Ms. Spearman. We do. In fact, today is not a good day in
some of our school districts in South Carolina because the
floodwaters of Hurricane Florence are arriving in the Horry
school district, Georgetown school district as we speak.
We anticipate a much larger number with our sister State of
North Carolina being hurt so badly.
Senator Warren. Well, and this is exactly the point. When
disasters hit, they do not affect only the communities that are
directly hit by the eye of the storm.
In Massachusetts, we took over 3,200 students who were
displaced by Maria. We did that because that is what we do in a
disaster. We reach out. We take care of people who need help
for as long as they need it. I know that in most of our states
including Tennessee, the same thing has happened.
On the first day of school in Puerto Rico last month, more
than 250 schools were permanently shuttered. In the first week
of the school year, more than 56,000 enrolled students,
students who the Puerto Rican Department of Education expected
to be in school, were missing from classes because they have
not come back. That does not even include the decrease of
approximately 42,000 students in enrollment since last year.
Mr. Jeffries, these are profound numbers. Do you think
Congress should hold hearings on Hurricane Maria and its
devastating impacts on the educational system to figure out
what lessons we can learn before the next disaster strikes?
Mr. Jeffries. Absolutely, absolutely.
As the Senator pointed out, we have had well over 250
schools closed, well over 40,000 children displaced. There are
all types of questions in terms of schools being overcrowded,
whether kids are getting their mental health services and
special education services, as well as just broader questions
about whether or not basic educational opportunities are
available to those kids.
Senator Warren. Thank you.
Commissioner Blomstedt, do you know how many hearings the
Senate has held on how the education and health systems in
Puerto Rico were affected by Hurricane Maria, the deadliest
storm in modern American history?
Dr. Blomstedt. I am guessing zero, but I did not know there
would be a test.
Senator Warren. Well, but you got the right answer.
Dr. Blomstedt. All right.
Senator Warren. Because the answer is none, zero.
Hurricane Maria killed about 3,000 American citizens, had a
crippling impact on health and education systems in Puerto Rico
and the U.S. Virgin Islands, had an impact all around the
country, and yet, there has not been a single hearing.
Three months after Hurricane Maria, a bipartisan group of
nine Members of this Committee wrote to the Chairman to ask for
a hearing on Hurricane Maria's impact on health and education
systems. A month later, 186 organizations sent the Chairman a
letter echoing this request.
Mr. Chairman, I have spoken to you privately about this
multiple times. I believe you when you say you are looking into
it. I want to respect your hearing selection process.
This morning, I sent you another letter asking for a
hearing. I have seven of my colleagues who have joined me in
this request.
We hope you will consider this latest request and that we
will have a hearing on the impact, the devastating impact on
Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the rest of the
country because of this deadly hurricane.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Warren. I have the letter
right in front of me and I thank you for giving it to me before
the hearing.
Senator Hassan.
Senator Hassan. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Murray.
Good morning to the panelists. Thank you for being here.
Thank you for your expertise and your passion for educating our
kids.
I want to start off just by echoing my colleagues' concerns
about any Federal dollars being used to arm teachers. It is a
dangerous proposal. It goes against congressional intent and
Secretary DeVos has full authority to deny that any education
funding be used in this way.
But today we are here to talk about the implementation of
ESSA. This law has been lauded as opening the door to more
flexibility for states to be innovative, something that my own
State of New Hampshire knows a great deal about.
New Hampshire's Performance Assessment of Competency
Education, or what we call PACE, executed through a Federal
waiver, helped pave the way to the creation of ESSA's
innovative assessment pilot, a pilot that New Hampshire has
since applied to.
Schools participating in PACE replaced standardized testing
with locally developed common performance assessments that are
integrated into a student's day to day work while giving the
statewide assessment to those students just once per grade
span.
As we innovate, I think as we all know, we discover things
like kids learn better with hands-on education, and some kids
learn better with a combination of hands-on and reading and
writing and the like.
We know that innovation is important, but first and
foremost, we need to ensure that all students have the tools
that they need to succeed, that that innovation actually works,
and that is where accountability comes in.
To Mr. Jeffries, the Every Student Succeeds Act is a civil
rights law that was designed to ensure that all students have
the opportunity to excel regardless of personal circumstances.
And I agree with you, you do not get an ``A'' for effort here.
We really have to do things that work.
The law includes specific guardrails to protect students
who have been historically underserved including requiring that
states factor the performance of student subgroups into their
accountability systems.
Specifically, the law requires states to establish a system
of meaningful differentiation on an annual basis of all public
schools in the state which shall be, and this the language in
the law, which shall be based on all indicators in the state's
accountability system for all students and for each subgroup of
students.
According to analysis conducted by the Alliance for
Excellent Education, only 17 states include the performance of
subgroups in their ratings as required by ESSA and many more
states risk under-identifying students for support.
I am very concerned that the U.S. Department of Education
has approved state accountability plans that are not in
compliance with the law.
Mr. Jeffries, do you think the Department of Education
should require states to amend their plans to bring them into
full compliance with ESSA?
Mr. Jeffries. Absolutely, not only should the Department do
that, the Department must do that because the bargain that this
Congress made with the states was that in exchange for these
dollars, you must implement the subgroup accountability
mandate. So there really is no discretion for her not to
require amendment in those circumstances.
Senator Hassan. Well, thank you for that.
I am going to ask a question to the state chiefs and
directors who are here. We may have to ask the specifics of it
for the record, but ESSA presents an opportunity to make
important strides for the Nation's students, particularly those
who have been continually underserved.
I am particularly concerned about students with
disabilities, children who have tremendous potential, but often
need additional support to achieve it. nationwide, less than 67
percent of students who experience disabilities graduate from
high school with their peers, and in 12 states, over one-third
of students who fail to graduate are students who experience
disabilities.
In a forthcoming report, the National Council for Learning
Disabilities identifies ways in which states, through their
ESSA state plans, could better meet the needs of students who
experience disabilities.
The report states that while some states have strong plans
to use ESSA to help meet the needs of students with
disabilities, far too many states are squandering this
opportunity. We have heard some concern about raising the
number of waivers allowed to school districts for children with
disabilities.
I will tell you that, from a personal perspective, my adult
son has very severe cerebral palsy. He is nonverbal, but he is
very cognitively able. It was not until his school district was
required to assess how he was doing and figure out how they
could communicate with him and he could communicate with them
that he actually began to make progress. Because the school
district, the teachers kept saying, ``We are doing all these
things.'' And we kept saying as parents, ``But how do you know
they are working?''
It was not until a regular education teacher said, ``You
have a very smart son.'' And I said, ``Well, we think he is
smart, but how do you know?'' And this is a really good regular
education teacher in a busy classroom. She said, ``Because he
laughs whenever the other kids get the wrong answer.''
[Laughter.]
Senator Hassan. Which told me that my child was very mean,
too, but.
[Laughter.]
Senator Hassan. But the point of this story is that from
that experience, they developed a way in which they realized
that Ben could raise his hand to say, ``Yes.'' And they
developed a variation of multiple choice testing to see how he
was doing. And he began to score regularly above 90 percent on
testing. He began to be accepted in his community, and develop
friendships, and develop the kind of community we all want our
children to have in school.
That is why it is so important that we do more than just
try. We do know that there are methods that work. We have to
drilldown. We have to get the resources there.
That is why I will follow-up with all of you about what
your districts are doing to really identify what these kids in
different subgroups need and how we can improve, because I
think that is the future, not only of education for kids with
disabilities who we need to empower and we need to employ. But
it is also the future for making sure we have the kind of
education system that really speaks to each child's potential
regardless of whether they are coded for disability or not.
Senator Hassan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to
go over.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Hassan.
Senator Smith.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Hassan, you are reminding me, again, of how
grateful I am to have you as a colleague along with all of my
others around.
I also just want to add my thanks to the moms and the
friends of moms in the room who are standing up for commonsense
approaches to keeping our kids safe and our teachers safe in
schools. Thank you so much. And though it is not the specific
topic of this discussion, I want to add my voice of opposition
to using these scarce Federal resources to buy guns.
I am very interested in this particular Title IV of ESSA
and let me explain what my interest is right now.
I have visited so many schools and teachers across
Minnesota, and I always ask teachers what keeps them up at
night. Inevitably what they will say to me, it is the mental
health of their students that causes the most worry and the
most concern.
Just last week, I was visiting with teachers, and students,
and counselors at Roosevelt High School in Minneapolis, and
just a moment ago, I was visiting with administrators from the
schools in northern Minnesota, particularly schools in Indian
country in Minnesota; same concern.
It is not surprising given the enormous issues that young
people face and the particular challenges we are seeing
particularly related to the opioid crisis, of course, and
problems with addiction as well. So many kids are struggling
with difficult family situations, with trauma, historic trauma
often, violence, substance abuse.
Estimates are that one in five teens have a mental health
challenge, which is severe enough to cause them significant
impairment in their day to day lives, and then we expect them
to come into our classrooms and be ready to take tests and do
well.
I would like to ask about this specifically, and I would
like to start with you, Mr. Jeffries. The Title IV-A block
grant allows schools to provide mental health services as a use
of those dollars.
Could you talk to us a little bit about how that works, and
how you see the relationship between the need for greater
mental health services in schools and our efforts to address
inequities in our educational system?
Mr. Jeffries. Thank you, Senator.
This is a critical area. We have, particularly in our Title
1 schools, we have young people who bring in trauma with them
into the classroom. We have young people bringing trauma
associated with housing insecurity. We have homeless kids. We
have kids who see domestic violence in their homes. We have
kids who have lost family members.
We have kids, then, with a range of issues and too many of
our schools simply do not have the resources and are simply not
equipped to meet those challenges.
Senator Smith. Often, these are treated as discipline
challenges----
Mr. Jeffries. That is correct.
Senator Smith. ----Rather than health challenges.
Mr. Jeffries. That is exactly right. So rather than
treating these as health challenges, we are quick to suspend
and expel kids, and that helps to fuel the school to prison
pipeline, as well.
This is a critical issue and frankly even reinforces even
more the absurdity of diverting scarce Title IV dollars to
arming educators.
Senator Smith. Would others on the panel like to address
this issue? Yes, Ms. Spearman.
Ms. Spearman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Jeffries.
Mr. Jeffries. Thank you.
Ms. Spearman. You are right on target. I hear the same
thing from principals who say, ``We need help in mental health
issues.''
We have set a goal in South Carolina. Currently, we have
mental health counselors in about half of our schools. We have
a goal that by 2022, we will have mental health, access to
mental health and tele-psychiatry. We are doing this through
virtual psychiatry. We are putting boxes in schools with nurses
who are equipped to know how to set an appointment up with a
student. So we are very, very proud of this.
The other thing that we are doing is to have pre-crisis
intervention teams in every school. We want, if a child, or a
student, or a faculty member reports something, we want it
handled before a tragedy occurs so these students would be
referred.
Senator Smith. What we are seeing in Minnesota is that if
you link body health with mental health that you reduce some of
the stigma and some of the barriers that even students in
middle school and high school feel toward seeing the care that
they need, the services that they need.
Have you seen that as well in your experience?
Dr. Bunting. We have, but we are doing direct action not
only with adding personnel, because this is a great need in
Delaware as well. But we are also training full staffs to be
alert to adverse childhood experience signals, to look for
signs of mental health.
We are piloting responsible classrooms. We are doing
compassionate school training, and we are doing this in
conjunction with our teachers union, which is a really
interesting partnership.
Senator Smith. That is good.
I am just about out of time, so I would love to talk more
with you about this. I am working on two bills that will expand
mental health services in schools, including a bill that is in
the big opioid package that this Committee passed out with, I
think, unanimous support. I am very eager to see that
additional work in schools. So thank you for all of your work
on this.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Smith.
Senator Jones.
Senator Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your service today and
for your testimony.
Like at least everyone else on this side of the dais, I
want to express my support for all the red, I see. I was not
sure if I was coming to a hearing or a University of Alabama
pep rally when I walked in.
[Laughter.]
Senator Jones. But I have publicly talked about the fact
that I felt like arming teachers was the dumbest idea that I
think I have ever heard in the educational field. And I still
have seen nothing to change my mind on that. With that said, I
would like to talk about reading a little bit.
It seems to me, based on 2015 data that I have seen from
the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the Nation's
report card, showed that 46 percent of white twelfth graders
were proficient or above in reading. Only 17 percent of African
American students scored at the same level.
Now, aside from the fact that if you really think about it,
those figures alone are pretty stunning, that 46 percent and 17
percent, but the gap between 46 percent and 17 percent, a 29
percent gap is not just stunning, it is a national disgrace.
ESSA is, in my view, as much of a civil rights law as it is
an educational law, but 64 years after ``Brown v. Board of
Education,'' we are still seeing tremendous gaps between white
students and African American students. So I would like to hear
from each of you because I think this can be tied----
That was 2015, hopefully, that has changed somewhat, but it
cannot be too dramatic over the course of 3 years.
I would like to hear from each of you just briefly what
steps are being taken because I think the subgroup
accountability is going to not help that situation if we are
conflating things. But what in each of your states, and Mr.
Jeffries, you can address this too, what is being done? What
can we do to narrow that gap on reading with kids in America?
Ms. Spearman. We believe focused instruction for those
young people who are underperforming. In our Read to Succeed
legislation, we are measuring whether you are reading on grade
level by third grade. But the really strong schools are doing
that in kindergarten and first grade, not waiting until third
grade. We have summer reading camps.
We used the ability this year to set aside some of our
Title funding; 3 percent set aside that went to the neediest
areas, many of them used that for additional interventions in
reading.
Senator Jones. All right. Let us go all the way this way.
We will get to you, Mr. Jeffries, last. Let us go to Nebraska.
Dr. Blomstedt. Yes, from my perspective, one of the
critical equity issues of our day is early childhood. The
ability for states and local school districts to ensure that
there is quality educational opportunities at the early
childhood level.
When children enter our schools in the K-12 environment and
they come in with a significant opportunity gap around reading
that is a gap that is going to be hard to close.
We have really looked in Nebraska about how we are going to
do that and made sure among other things, but ensure that on
the early childhood front, there is a significant opportunity
for all students to be able to be in that setting or in a
setting that is going to advance them.
Senator Jones. Thank you.
Dr. Bunting. We find that that is a root cause of our third
graders not being proficient in reading as well. So we are
working very closely with our early childhood community to link
what they are doing with what is expected for that child by the
time he enters kindergarten.
As I mentioned earlier, we also have put reading
interventionists in our schools. We have reading teachers,
reading specialists always trying to analyze the problem as it
occurs early and letting us have that opportunity to make a
difference.
Senator Jones. Mr. Jeffries.
Mr. Jeffries. Four quick pieces, I would say one,
absolutely, early childhood is absolutely critical. Oftentimes,
these efforts already begin when kids hit kindergarten. In many
states, kids do not have access to high quality preschool
programs.
Second, making sure that we get our best teachers into the
most high need schools, and part of that, there needs to be
differentials in pay, so we can actually pay teachers more to
go to the most high need schools.
Third, reimaging teacher prep; many of our programs of
teacher preparation are very antiquated and there is very
little data showing that many of the programs actually are
producing graduates who are actually driving achievement in
classrooms.
Then fourth, unpacking bias; sadly, when it comes to some
of the issues of racial inequity, we have too many teachers who
come into the classroom and frankly just think less of kids of
color. Think kids of color do not have the same capacity to
learn to the same degree that white students have, and that is
precisely why the accountability provision is so critical.
For too long, folks have said, ``We tried to do it. We are
doing the best we can. We do not know what else to do.'' But
oftentimes underneath that are a set of biases that we have
seen for a long period of time, unfortunately, in our country.
Those are the type of initiatives we think we ought to
pursue.
Senator Jones. All right. Thank you all.
I am going to submit a question for the record that I would
like each of you to answer because the next thing we are going
to be taking up, I think next year, is likely the Higher
Education Act and the reauthorization. And I would like to
submit a question for each of you.
What are the lessons from ESSA that we can maybe apply on
accountability and issues for the Higher Education Act?
Senator Jones. Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for being here today.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Jones.
Senator Casey.
Senator Casey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the panel for being here today and for your
work on these issues.
I will start with Dr. Bunting for a question which involves
the issue of what we do on school property with regard to
firearms. I know it has been asked and referred to several
different times. I think there is one part of this question
which I am not sure has been asked.
As many of you know, the two leading unions in the country
for teachers are the American Federation of Teachers and the
National Education Association. Both have certainly opposed
arming teachers and have jointly called proposals to do so,
``astounding and disturbing.'' I will read a much longer
quotation from both unions.
``We must do everything we can to reduce the possibility of
any gunfire in schools and concentrate on ways to keep all guns
off school property, and ensure the safety of children and
school employees.'' That is directly from both organizations.
Dr. Bunting, I would ask you the first question, which is,
do you agree with the assessment of the American Federation of
Teachers and the National Education Association?
Dr. Bunting. I think they adhere to the policy that the
best way to prevent an emergency is to prevent it. That is the
best way to deal with it.
Senator Casey. The second question is about alternatives.
What are some alternatives to purchasing weapons that might
help to make schools, in fact, safer?
Dr. Bunting. In the vein of prevention, there is much that
can be done. We actually are working in Delaware with our
Homeland Security group that has additional measures put into
place in schools.
With our emergency management organization, we are looking
at schools and assessing what additional features must increase
their safety and security in buildings.
Our legislature has actually created a school safety and
security fund to provide funding for things that could help in
schools, not people necessarily. But the choice is a local
decision as to what might be needed: secured entrances, panic
buttons, any kind of signaling device, trainings, and so forth.
So we are looking at it from the perspective of preventing
anything that might happen.
We also do have in many of our schools safety officers,
many of them are constables. We also have school resource
officers. So we are trying to make sure that we accent the
security of our staff and our students, but we are not looking
at something that involves purchasing firearms with Title IV
moneys.
We also go at it from the mental health perspective,
thinking that that is contributing to the problem as well and
trying to prevent that.
Senator Casey. Dr. Bunting, thank you very much.
The next question I will ask is with regard to
disaggregating data by subgroup. I will lay down a foundation
for the question first.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act includes a
number of important provisions to ensure that states are able
to identify and address persistent achievement gaps and provide
all children with high quality public education. And in
particular, states identify schools that have consistently
underperforming subgroups, as well as schools that have the
lowest performing subgroups.
The law requires the different categories of
underperforming schools are identified and targeted for
support. Reporting data disaggregated by subgroup is meant to
help shine a light on achievement gaps and help states and
local districts to target resources where they are needed most.
Professor Jeffries, I will start with you and I may be out
of time by the time we get to your answer. But we have seen a
number of instances in which the Department has approved state
plans that do not clearly define when a school will be
identified for additional support to improve their students'
academic achievement.
Can you please describe problems that a vague criteria for
receiving additional support definition could cause with
particular emphasis on the impact on students with
disabilities? Sorry for the long question.
Mr. Jeffries. Well, the first step is the failure to
differentiate by subgroup by the children with disabilities.
Subgroup would mean in the first instance, that any state plan
on the remedial side that the plan will not be tailored to the
nature of the problems because the state would not have a
precise sense of what those problems are. So that is number
one.
Then if on top of that states are submitting to the
Department a very vague, very ambiguous plan about how they are
going to meet those challenges, which at some level, they are
going to be vague and ambiguous because there is not the
subgroup differentiation.
Then that is going to mean that the very objective that
Congress had in enacting ESSA to provide a fair, equitable,
high quality education to close achievement gaps, for those
students with disabilities, they are not going to receive what
Congress promised, which is an equitable education.
This is absolutely paramount and is absolutely critical for
this Congress to hold the Department accountable to do what
Congress said it must do in exchange for the money,
differentiate by subgroup and then have evidence-based remedies
to address any deficits that exist.
Senator Casey. Great.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Casey.
Senator Kaine.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; an important
hearing.
Thank you all for being here. I want to ask about gaps of a
different kind. I want to talk to you about discipline.
One of the requirements in ESSA was that states would have
to describe how the state will support local educational
agencies receiving assistance to improve school conditions for
student learning, including through reducing, quote, ``The
overuse of discipline practices that removes students from the
classroom.''
Often, discipline practices have been utilized in ways that
are highly discriminatory, especially against minority
students. And kids then absorb that lesson and they think they
are going to get into trouble more likely than their peers, and
that affects their learning.
I would hope that you might each take a minute, if you
would, and tell me in your states just what you are trying to
do to review and utilize data on school discipline to make sure
that we are not penalizing historically underserved students?
And then maybe Mr. Jefferies, you could talk about it from the
perspective of a national perspective. Do you think D.O.E. and
the states are doing enough to reduce disparate uses of
discipline?
Thank you.
Ms. Spearman. I am very proud of the work that we have done
in South Carolina. In my first year of office, we held a
taskforce to look at our student discipline templates, the
training of resource officers, and to really address the issue
of the pipeline to prison. I think we have adequately made some
changes.
Then this past year, our General Assembly also passed new
legislation on disrupting schools to clarify that. We are
working now to get those into regulation. I am very pleased
with the progress that we have made.
Again, we also in our ESSA plan from our stakeholders heard
that parents wanted to know about student climate and that is
why we have included that as one of our indicators where
students will be telling us how they feel about the safety
inside their schools.
We are looking forward to that information being on our
report card.
Senator Kaine. Great, thank you.
Ms. Bunting.
Dr. Bunting. Again, I can echo much of what has been said,
but I will add to it that we are very concerned about some of
the disproportionate figures that we have analyzed. We do watch
data very closely in Delaware and then we have full
conversations and expect actions to reduce gaps or to remove
the disparities.
But I think our efforts this year--and I am very proud, as
I mentioned--of our staffs moving forward with such training as
ACES for Adverse Childhood Experiences and understanding what
an impact that would make in a classroom, and for trying such
things as responsive classroom techniques and compassionate
schools.
We are working at it from the understand perspective as
well in offering alternatives that are not ones that involves
suspension and expulsion at times. We cannot teach students if
they are not there with us.
Senator Kaine. Absolutely.
Mr. Blomstedt.
Dr. Blomstedt. Yes, so in Nebraska, we have had, I think,
really serious conversations about how to do this. And we
actually had a couple of instances where we were enforcing the
prior--even before ESSA passed--the prior law and how that was
addressed. I was not in a position necessarily.
We entered in a battle with a particular school district. I
said, ``What in the lay out of plans is going to make a
particular difference for your students?'' Let us think about
trauma informed. Let us think about culturally responsive
practices within your schools.
I have walked hallways in some of our schools where kids
are outside the classroom for something as simple as crinkling
a water bottle or something like this. And I am going, ``This
is absurd.''
We need to be ensuring that our students are in our
classrooms, that the discipline should not be removing their
opportunity to learn. It should be a conversation about
creating that climate and culture that is appropriate.
Our efforts have really turned to that approach, different
than the traditional compliance. Bang somebody over the head
with their numbers, but more about what are our strategies that
are going to really make a difference, and then track the
numbers on accountability.
Senator Kaine. Excellent.
Mr. Jeffries, address it from the national level in things
that we should pay attention to as we are exercising oversight
over the D.O.E.'s efforts in this regard.
Mr. Jeffries. Thank you, Senator.
We think it is critical for Congress to, again, demand the
data. Folks are very well intentioned throughout the country.
They are really trying to do the right thing, but the proof is
in the pudding.
We continue to see throughout this country, particularly
with low income kids and even more so particularly low income
kids of color, we continue to see disproportionate discipline,
disproportionate suspensions, disproportionate expulsions for
the same types of activities that white students, upper income
students are receiving different sort of reactions to.
We have gotten reports, even recently, of African American
students in certain school districts being sent home because
they did not have a belt on and there was a certain uniform
policy.
These sort of practices fundamentally contravene the equity
mandates of ESSA. We absolutely need more of the trauma
informed and restored justice practices. The absolute last
resort for any school district, particularly a school district
that receive Title 1 funds, should be to send a baby home. So
if a child makes a mistake, kids are going to make mistakes. I
have two kids. I could never imagine, if my kids make a
mistake----
Senator Kaine. Do not get me started.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Jeffries. ----Say, ``I am going to kick you out the
house.'' Right? ``You did not do your homework. You did not do
what me and your mom asked you to do. We are going to kick you
out the house. Go outside and then we will figure out when we
are going to let you back in.''
The idea that we would kick babies out and send them back
into the community is simply ridiculous. And, in fact, we just
saw a study of a kid who was sent home who actually was
murdered on the way back home. And so particularly when we have
kids coming from communities filled with difficulty and trauma,
and the school is their oasis to get away from that.
Clearly, we need Congress to demand data to make sure that
schools and states are doing the right thing.
Senator Kaine. Well, thank you for that.
Mr. Chairman, I think I will ask a follow-up for the record
as well about some of the best practices that you mentioned
from legislation, compassionate schools, to some of the
programs that you mentioned and get some best practices from
you that might be helpful for the Committee.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Kaine.
Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to go back to one issue I talked about in my
opening statement and that is my concern with Secretary DeVos'
decision to waive the 1 percent testing cap for 23 states now,
because I really do worry about too many children with
disabilities suffering from low expectations.
I am very deeply troubled that despite requests from my
staff, the Department has not made these waiver requests, and
the supporting documentation, public. Instead, they are posting
boilerplate approval letters on their Website, which really
makes me wonder, what are they hiding?
Mr. Jeffries, quickly, can you think of any good reason why
a state would want to hide the information from the public?
Mr. Jeffries. Absolutely not. I mean, the public is
entitled to the information. Parents, families, policymakers
cannot act if they do not have access to the information.
Senator Murray. In fact, part of our goal in ESSA was to
ensure parents had more information.
Mr. Jeffries. Absolutely.
Senator Murray. They could make good decisions.
Dr. Bunting, Dr. Blomstedt, both of your states actually
requested and received a 1 percent waiver. Will you share your
request letter and the supporting documents with this
Committee?
Dr. Blomstedt. Yes, I believe we can. That would be no
problem. I will tell you, ours gets into the notions of traps
within those figures, but I would be happy to talk more about
that.
Senator Murray. But you are willing to release that, then.
Ms. Bunting.
Dr. Bunting. Yes, we would also. Ours is slightly over by a
couple of hundreds.
Senator Murray. Okay.
Dr. Bunting. But we would be glad to share that
correspondence.
Senator Murray. Thank you. And in the interest of public
transparency in our education system, would you be willing to
make those documents public?
Dr. Blomstedt. I am, yes.
Dr. Bunting. I am as well.
Senator Murray. Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate
that.
Just let me ask, as a condition of getting those waivers,
you are required to take steps intending to reduce the number
of students who are taking the alternate assessments in your
state so you get below that 1 percent? I just wanted to ask
each one of you what your states are doing?
Mr. Blomstedt, if could you tell us?
Dr. Blomstedt. Yes, I think in our particular case, we have
actually had quite a transition on our state assessment system.
So at high school, we have gone from a state assessment to
A.C.T. That was required by our state legislature.
We have actually just implemented a new 3 through 8
assessment system as well, and at that same point in time, a
new alternate assessment with three different vendors. So a lot
of ours is kind of in that approach in looking at where we can
set some targets to get those numbers appropriately in place.
Dr. Bunting. That is also true for us. We have a fairly new
alternative assessment. We are looking at the data and then we
take steps to assure that we are meeting the requirement next
time.
Senator Murray. You are addressing the disproportion based
on race in those requests on who takes it?
Dr. Bunting. Yes.
Senator Murray. That is one of the requirements of the law
is that you address it.
Dr. Blomstedt. Yes, I would have to look at the specifics,
but I believe so. Yes.
Senator Murray. All right. And then there are a number of
others. If we could have your documentation, that would be very
helpful. I appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murray.
On the waiver issue, the waiver is in the law. There have
been 23 waivers granted, most are for 1 year for
implementation. There is a Website that has the application
letter and the approval or declining letter.
I am told that it is standard practice not to release the
preliminary conversations. The last two administrations at
least did not do that. I am not sure what the argument is for
and against. I see that the states might not object to that, so
I will take a look at that myself and see what I think about
it.
But I thought the fact that the Website contains the
application and the denial and the reason or approval for it
has been sufficient for prior administrations and this
administration seemed to think the same.
I wanted to ask one other question. I suppose when we
started our discussions on No Child Left Behind and fixing it,
that the one thing we heard the most about was testing.
At first, my recommendation was that we eliminate the 17
federally required tests and let states decide what tests there
ought to be, as well as decide what to do about the tests.
Others had a different view and so, our compromise in the end
was we would keep the 17 tests, but then allow the states to
decide what to do about the results of the tests. Looking back
on it, think that was a good compromise, the result of a good
discussion among Senators on the Committee. But we heard a lot
about over-testing.
Now tell me, if you will, in your states--and Mr. Jeffries,
I would be interested in your opinion as well--what other
factors you are looking at to measure a school's performance
and quality other than test scores?
Mr. Blomstedt.
Dr. Blomstedt. Yes, in part, of course, assessments are
extremely important. I will tell you that Nebraska law also
requires us to have essentially the same set of tests that ESSA
does. And so, there is really some agreement on that side of
the equation.
But when we try to look at other things that matter to our
students, levels of student engagement really matter. I mean,
if students and parents are not engaged, we do not have
everything----
The Chairman. What do you mean by student engagement?
Dr. Blomstedt. Student engagement, that they actually feel
like there is someone in the school setting that, number one,
is keeping them engaged and not just being in a position where,
``They do not care about me.'' They cannot identify an adult in
that school that cares and knows about them.
Things like that are actually important. Now, I would not
include that necessarily in our accountability system per se,
but it is part of what we are talking about is how do you
measure that type of engagement? How do you understand the
positive partnerships and relationships that students need to
be successful, and our schools are providing that as well.
We are also looking at, certainly, things like absenteeism
as one particular measure. So we have included chronic
absenteeism, but it is really kind of a proxy for other
engagement. Are they engaged? Do they have other difficulties?
Are we addressing that with each of our students?
That gives you a couple of examples.
The Chairman. Ms. Bunting.
Dr. Bunting. If we are looking at our official Delaware
school success framework, we do include things such as chronic
absenteeism. We are looking at science and social studies as
well.
We are very concerned about students who are prepared for
whatever they choose to do once they leave us: career, college,
work, military. We measure that.
We are also concerned about watching our high schoolers so
that we are assessing whether or not someone is on track for
graduation because we realize the value of that diploma and
what it means for, again, whatever choice that student may make
as he or she leaves us.
The English language proficiency progress is very important
to us in Delaware because we have an extremely rapidly growing
Hispanic population. We care deeply about those students and
want to make sure that that gap does not exist.
We are working on that one.
The Chairman. Mr. Jeffries.
Mr. Jeffries. We see some states looking at teacher
retention, attendance rates, administrative retention, the
ultimate graduation rates of the young people, the extent to
which young people graduate. They may have a diploma, but then
do they need remediation when they get to college, particularly
community colleges?
We see some charter schools in particular and some
innovative schools experimenting with student satisfaction
surveys where the students can weigh-in on their experience at
the school, and we even see some also in the charter school
space as well. That will bring in independent entities to
evaluate pedagogy instruction in classroom and school practice.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Spearman.
Ms. Spearman. Yes, sir.
In South Carolina, I think we did our best job at the high
school level with all of our multiple measures I mentioned
earlier. We have the student climate survey that we are using
in 3 through 12 grades.
But I think we have some work to do in South Carolina on
our elementary and middle school ratings. We are still too
heavily based on just test scores. I think the arts, I think
leadership development programs that are given in the school
should be considered because that is a big, important part of
what we do in those schools. We are not measuring those yet. So
that is something we are working on. We will probably be coming
for some amendments to our plan.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Thanks to all of the witnesses. Thanks to the Senators. We
have had good participation by Senators today.
You witnesses know better than anybody else how filled with
different opinions and discussions about education can be. It
is like a University of Tennessee football game with 100,000
people in the stands all knowing exactly what the next play
ought to be. So we all are experts on it.
We were very proud of the fact that we were able to come to
a conclusion in 2015 on Every Student Succeeds Act and hope it
is education policy for a good while. We will look forward to
continuing to learning the implementation that you will make.
I want to also thank our guests, the people who have come
today. We welcome you. This is your right to be here and I hope
you have seen that while we had some real differences of
opinion on a Committee this large that we try to do it in a
civil and respectful way. We appreciate the fact that you have
done the same. So we hope you will come back some time.
The hearing record will remain open for 10 days. Members
may submit additional information for the record within that
time.
The next meeting hearing entitled, ``Health Care in Rural
America: Examining Experience and Costs,'' will occur this
afternoon at 3:30 p.m. Senator Enzi is chairing that effort.
Thank you for being here today.
The Committee will stand adjourned.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[all]