[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 7, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H1046-H1055]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF RULE SUBMITTED BY DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION RELATING TO ACCOUNTABILITY AND STATE PLANS
Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 91, I call up
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 57) providing for congressional
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule
submitted by the Department of Education relating to accountability and
State plans under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965,
and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 91, the joint
resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
H.J. Res. 57
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress
disapproves the rule submitted by the Department of Education
relating to accountability and State plans under the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (published at
81 Fed. Reg. 86076 (November 29, 2016)), and such rule shall
have no force or effect.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita) and
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
General Leave
Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous materials on H.J. Res. 57.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Indiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 57.
Mr. Speaker, I was here also on this floor listening to the debate
that just finished on H.J. Res. 58, and I have a feeling a lot of the
same things are going to carry over because we are dealing with the
same Department. In fact, we are dealing with the prior administration
generally.
I was struck by the words that we need to ``give direction to the
States.'' I think, by definition, those words demonstrate how one side
here thinks that they know best; that their judgment is somehow better
than the judgment of governors, of State legislators,
[[Page H1047]]
of parents, teachers, and superintendents themselves when it comes to
this issue and, in fact, in a larger perspective, when it comes to most
issues around here. We must give direction to the States--no.
The fact of the matter is, when the President signed into law, when
we passed ESSA--the Every Student Succeeds Act--in a lot of ways we
were saying to the States: You give the direction. You set the way that
you think is best to educate your best assets. Your best assets, of
course, being our next generation.
While we at the Federal level would like to be partners, the fact of
the matter is it is their property. The tax dollars we are talking
about are the property of the individuals living in the 50 States and
other jurisdictions.
So now here we are using the Congressional Review Act to get rid of
some regulations that are doing that very thing. We wrote a very
specific law saying the States are in charge. Here we have a Federal
agency inserting itself, not just interpreting law, but actually making
law and taking us in the exact opposite direction that all of us
intended.
When I say all of us, I say that in a very bipartisan way, Mr.
Speaker, because--I am now in my fifth year of being chairman of the
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education
here in the House. My first 4 years were consumed working with past
Chairman John Kline, current Chairwoman Virginia Foxx, other members of
the committee, and all our Democratic counterparts in getting this very
bipartisan law passed and signed into law.
Let me go back, Mr. Speaker, and set the table here. You will have to
remember that under the No Child Left Behind law, which was the law of
the land for some 13 years--perhaps a well-intentioned law, but
completely unreasonable in terms of its forced, ridged, one-size-fits-
all accountability system that heavily dictated how we would gauge and
address school performance--that system represented a top-down approach
in K-12 education. After 13 years, the data is in and the results are
in. It simply didn't work.
So that is why just a little more than a year ago, Congress passed--
again, former President Obama signed into law in a very bipartisan
way--the Every Student Succeeds Act. With this law, Republicans and
Democrats worked together to reform our education system to ensure that
all children are able to receive the education they deserve. It
represents a fundamentally different approach to education and, in the
words of one superintendent, empowers local leaders to ``dream and lead
and transform public education in this country.''
Unfortunately, almost immediately after the bill became law, the
Obama administration began its attempt to roll back these bipartisan
reforms. With the Every Student Succeeds Act, Congress promised to
reduce the Federal role and restore State and local control over K-12
education. The law empowers States to develop their own policies to
hold schools accountable to parents and taxpayers.
For accountability to work, Mr. Speaker, it must be driven by the
State and local leaders who are best equipped to directly address the
issues in their school. Those leaders know better than any Federal
bureaucrat in the Department of Education what their kids need, even
down to what their kids' names are. I challenge any Federal bureaucrat
to know better.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration's flawed accountability
regulation would reestablish the Washington-knows-best approach to
accountability. It is the very same thing I mentioned earlier that we
just heard regarding H.J. Res. 58. It is an approach that is deeply
flawed.
How do I know? What is the best metric to prove the point that that
Washington-knows-best approach is deeply flawed?
Look at it. Look at the test scores since the Federal Government has
been involved in education. You see that they haven't gone up. Yet we
have spent billions and billions of dollars since the 1970s here at the
Federal level on local education to see no improvement in the test
scores.
Not only does the regulation dictate prescriptive accountability
requirements, but it violates many of the prohibitions that we put in
on the Secretary of Education. As we all saw, the top-down approach
simply didn't work. So that is why we repealed No Child Left Behind and
passed a bill to transform K-12 education.
Our students deserve better than the failed policies of the past, and
that is what the Every Student Succeeds Act does, if implemented as
Congress intended.
Now, our intent was not ambiguous, and the law is far from silent. We
were very specific in the law we wrote. Our specificity dictated that
the States and localities were back in charge. They were driving
the bus again. No pun intended.
The Department has taken some kind of ambiguity, I guess, some kind
of silence, and has inserted themselves into the lawmaking role. That
wasn't our intent.
Our intent was for a new role for the Department, a much smaller role
for the Department, a less supervisory role for the Department, and a
less punitive role for the Department, one that would simply ensure
that our specifically written law, as passed off this floor, passed off
the Senate floor, and eventually signed into law, was followed as we
wrote it. So an example of that was we require the States to have plans
for how they were going to test, that they would test, but nothing more
prescriptive than that. That is just one example, the testing. There
were some other parameters.
Then they were to submit those plans to the Federal Government, and
the Department of Education was simply to check the box and make sure
that the plans were done and otherwise comply with the law. The
Department wasn't to be more prescriptive than that. It wasn't to give
any more regulation than that. It wasn't to, frankly, give too much
more direction than that because we recognize that this responsibility
is primarily that of governors, State legislators, school
superintendents, parents, and teachers.
Now, States are already working to implement the law in their school
districts. I want to be very clear that this resolution in no way does
anything to stymie those efforts. States should move straight ahead.
Instead, the resolution gives States the certainty they need to
continue moving forward, confident that their plans will be reviewed by
the Department of Education against the requirements of the statute and
nothing more, with deference given to the judgment of these local
legislators, local superintendents, et cetera, as the law requires.
We are also committed to working with the new administration to
ensure States receive the support they need consistent with the limits
placed in the statute.
So, my colleagues, by passing this resolution and blocking
implementation of the Obama administration's flawed accountability
rule, we can ensure that the promises we made under the Every Student
Succeeds Act to restore State and local control in K-12 education are
kept.
I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 57 and protect those
important bipartisan reforms.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution before us, which
would overturn the accountability regulations in the Every Student
Succeeds Act, our Nation's most important K-12 education law.
These accountability guidelines promulgated by the Department are not
only allowed under the Every Student Succeeds Act, but they are
essentially required. This legislative body last session put language
into the Every Student Succeeds Act calling upon the Department and the
Secretary to clarify this. It is a very different perspective on what
that legislative intent was.
There are items in the Every Student Succeeds Act that we agreed--
Democrats and Republicans--the Secretary and the Department would be
prohibited from promulgating rules regarding. For instance, one of
those is the promulgation of rules in support of the Common Core
curriculum.
{time} 1545
Democrats and Republicans agree that the Federal Government should
[[Page H1048]]
not be setting curriculum. That is a matter for the States. We prohibit
it, specifically, in language in ESSA. We prohibit the Federal
Government from promulgating rules that require, in any way, shape, or
form, the adoption of the common core standards at the State level.
What is not prohibited is rules regarding State accountability
systems. Quite to the contrary, it is important work. In fact, it is
the core work under the Every Student Succeeds Act, that very core
commitment to civil rights that so many Democrats and Republicans feel
passionate about that is contained through these rules.
When the Elementary and Secondary Education Act first passed in 1965,
it was a critical piece of civil rights legislation, and it still is to
this day. It was written with the intent that every student, no matter
their race, background, ZIP Code, deserved a great education. And
today, the Every Student Succeeds Act maintains that spirit.
If it had some of the prohibition that my colleague on the other side
of the aisle believes it has, but won't be able to cite specific
statute that it has, Democrats wouldn't have supported that bill, and
it wouldn't have passed with nearly every Democrat--if not every
Democratic vote--in the House and the Senate.
For months, States have been working diligently to write their own
State plans to comply with the Every Student Succeeds Act. My home
State of Colorado has undertaken an extensive process. I got to attend
one of the stakeholder meetings as part of that process, gathering
feedback from educators, and parents, and students to write a State
plan that works for Colorado and meets the requirements of the new law
and the rules that this CRA would undo.
This resolution would undo all of that State-level work, all of the
work that people in Colorado have done, that people in other States
have done; create massive chaos and uncertainty in public education;
and destroy the civil rights safeguards that Republicans and Democrats
worked so diligently to put in place in the Every Student Succeeds Act.
Not only would this CRA overturn the regulations, but it would
prevent the Department of Education from looking at accountability
again. It would tie the hands of the newly confirmed Secretary of
Education, preventing her from improving or building upon the
accountability measures that Congress, through the language of ESSA,
asked the Department to take on.
This regulation was written after the Department of Education
received thousands of comments from stakeholders, including parents,
teachers, school boards, and advocates. Without a rule, the approval of
the State accountability plans would be entirely at the discretion of
the new Secretary, Secretary DeVos--the exact type of scenario the
Republicans wanted to avoid by rewriting ESSA, essentially arguing--and
many Democrats agreed with the argument--that effectively it was
arbitrary use of power that then-Secretary Duncan wielded, and then-
Secretary King, to grant the necessary waivers under the No Child Left
Behind Act by removing these rules that had been promulgated.
Effectively, we would be back to where we started without criteria
for approval or denial of State plans; without adequate safeguards for
civil rights; and without the assurance that we can improve and build
upon progress.
How can we trust any Secretary--Duncan, King, DeVos, future
Secretaries--to know what a good accountability plan and bad
accountability plan look like? Why should our legislative body delegate
that level of authority without rules and regulations that we derive
and allow them to make an arbitrary and capricious decisionmaking
process that could involve approving bad accountability plans, or
failing to approve strong accountability plans? That should be a huge
concern for parents, teachers, students, and the public system.
You know what? Republicans were right, as were Democrats, when we
argued that we needed criteria for the approval of accountability
plans. And the answer is not to give blanket authority to any Secretary
with regard to approval or denial of their plans, and that is what
these rules do. And if they need to be improved and built upon, let's
work with the new Secretary to do that.
But by not only undoing those rules, but by actually prohibiting the
Secretary from promulgating additional rules, it will give the
Department of Education effective arbitrary veto over every State in
our country and an unprecedented level of federalized control of our
schools, which might be the real Republican agenda with this bill here
today.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I would only comment that the comments made
to the rule in this regard--the ones I have seen--were almost all bad.
They were negative against this rule, except for maybe a few groups.
I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Ms. Foxx) who is chairwoman of the full committee.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague Mr. Rokita for
yielding time and for handling this on the floor today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 57. For years, the
Federal Government operated under the flawed idea that Washington knows
best when it comes to education. Policies put in place in recent
decades vastly expanded the Federal footprint in the K-12 schools and
prevented State and local education leaders from delivering the high-
quality education all children deserve.
Something needed to change. Yet, under the Obama administration, the
problem only got worse. For years, the last administration used
regulations, waivers, and pet projects to unilaterally exert its
control over education. Its heavy-handed, one-size-fits-all policies
only increased the Federal role in America's classrooms, moving K-12
education in the wrong direction. That is why Republicans and Democrats
came together to pass the Every Student Succeeds Act.
Enacted just over a year ago, the law was built on three important
principles: empowering parents, reducing the Federal role, and
restoring local control. It sent a clear message that the American
people were done with the top-down approach to education.
Unfortunately, the previous administration didn't get the message.
The Department of Education continued using rules and regulations to
push its failed education agenda--the same agenda Congress rejected
with overwhelming bipartisan support. We are here today to put a stop
to two of those rules.
The resolution under consideration, H.J. Res. 57, will roll back a
regulation implementing accountability provisions in the Every Student
Succeeds Act. The law empowers States to develop ways to hold schools
accountable to the students and parents they serve, and ensure taxpayer
dollars are being spent responsibly. The Department's accountability
rule, however, does the exact opposite. Not only does it impose
prescriptive accountability requirements on State education leaders,
but it also violates specific prohibitions the law places on the
Secretary of Education's authority.
We also considered, a few moments ago, H.J. Res. 58, which will block
implementation of a regulation that significantly expands the Federal
Government's involvement in teacher preparation.
Yet, another example of Obama overreach, the teacher preparation rule
essentially creates a Federal system for evaluating teacher
performance. It would be virtually impossible to implement and could
lead to fewer teachers serving low-income students.
Together, these two resolutions of disapproval will move us towards
limiting the Federal role in education and protect the local control
promised with recent education reforms.
I want to thank Representatives Rokita and Guthrie for their work to
fight against the flawed policies of the past and for leading the way
in delivering a more positive, more limited, and more responsible
Federal role in education.
I urge my colleagues to support both resolutions.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding. I
[[Page H1049]]
rise in strong opposition of H.J. Res. 57. This resolution takes aim at
the heart of the Every Student Succeeds Act, or ESSA. That bill passed
with overwhelming bipartisan support. This resolution would strike down
regulations that provide necessary clarity to States about what it
means to ensure that all students are taught to high standards, and
what it means to provide accurate data on student academic performance
and resource equity.
States now lack direction needed to proceed with implementation of
the bill. Just last week, the Department removed all ESSA technical
assistance to the States from the public domain, despite numerous and
repeated requests for technical assistance from State and local
leaders.
Mr. Speaker, when Congress came together to pass ESSA, we made a
promise, the promise of stability and consistency and a full
replacement of No Child Left Behind. And while we promised new
flexibilities, those flexibilities came with guardrails to guide the
decisionmaking, to ensure protections for vulnerable students, and to
support educators and school leaders. This resolution breaks that
bipartisan promise.
Contrary to the wishes of some, ESSA was not a blank check to States
from the Federal Government. ESSA is a fundamental approach with much
power restored to the State and local level, but it comes with Federal
protections for vulnerable students. So we must not waver in our
commitment to give States the support and guidance they need to move
forward.
Mr. Speaker, some claim the regulations are unnecessary because
States can just read the law and implement it. But we all know, based
on precedence and common sense, that the new landscape of ESSA would
necessitate regulatory clarity from the executive branch, just as all
Federal agencies routinely update existing regulations as new
legislation is passed.
Providing stakeholders with direction and clarity about how to carry
out the Federal laws as big as the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act is not new. No Child Left Behind led the Bush administration to
undergo similar rulemaking, and it was more than 2 years before the
regulations were fully realized. It also enabled States, in their
efforts, to move forward with timely submission of their ESSA plans.
If this resolution of disapproval is enacted, States will have no
ability to prepare State plans that require Federal approval until
after the Department reestablishes requirements and criteria, causing
an unwelcome and unnecessary delay for States eager to move forward,
leaving ESSA unregulated before States to just wait until the new
regulations are passed, and also undo months of work that is currently
underway.
In effect, the lack of clarity on how to effectively utilize the new
flexibilities, while meeting statutory requirements, may lead many
States to revert to--they have to revert to something--maybe the No
Child Left Behind narrow policies and systems, the very policies that
the ESSA eliminated.
Mr. Speaker, where the law's requirements are ambiguous, agency
interpretation is necessary to set a Federal floor. Without that floor,
compliance with the Federal law becomes subjective, with different
standards being applied from State to State. This kind of subjectivity
was the same problem we had with No Child Left Behind when States
relied on guidance without regulation.
Under that scheme, the Department could not be held accountable for
treating one State different from another, and that is what we are
correcting through the enactment and regulation of ESSA's core
requirements. Those requirements must be applied fairly across all
States. That is the whole point of a Federal law.
The Department conducted hundreds of meetings, held public forums and
listening sessions, and read and responded to thousands of comments to
produce a consensus-driven rule. The Department made significant
revisions before finalization, and they were met with praise from
teachers, State education chiefs, local administrators, parents, and
civil rights communities.
Regardless of whether you think the rule is perfect or flawed, the
substance of the rule is a reasonable interpretation that provides
clarity for States to enable their compliance with statutory
requirements. Now, President Trump has administrative tools at his
disposal to revise or completely rewrite this regulation. However, it
is clear, based on history of implementation of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act that regulatory clarity is necessary.
Using the CRA to block the rule is unnecessary and shortsighted. It
hurts students and schools. It undermines a bipartisan intent of
Congress and leaves States in a lurch by causing confusion and delays
for the submission of their State plans. It also undermines equity
protections for vulnerable students that the law was intended to serve.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. This resolution threatens the success of the
law we fought so hard to pass, so I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I finally realized what is happening here.
What the other side considers ambiguous is really flexibility. I think
that is the difference here. But, let's be clear. What we intended
through ESSA was flexibility for the States. Nowhere in the law are we
ambiguous about what we intended.
I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Ferguson), who, in the month that he has been here, has already
injected a lot of energy to the committee and is doing a great job for
his constituents.
{time} 1600
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 57.
Voting in support of this resolution ensures that the Federal
Government will stay out of our children's classrooms and give the
power back to the local authorities to make good, solid education
decisions.
Throughout my congressional campaign, the people of the Third
District of Georgia of all backgrounds and income continued to express
their frustration that the Federal Government continued to get involved
in policies that should be the domain of local and State governments.
I have spoken with education leaders in the Third District of
Georgia, in places like Troup County and Fayette County, and they were
very pleased with the bipartisan effort of the Every Student Succeeds
Act passed last Congress. They told me that they felt hopeful with the
new flexibility written into the law granting the power to the States
and the local leaders to decide what accountability measures work best
for their students. However, as time went on, they expressed great
concern as the Department of Education began writing this new
accountability regulation.
The accountability measures that will work for my home State of
Georgia and my home district won't always work best for students
elsewhere. Trying to educate students in the Third District of Georgia
the exact same way you do students in Detroit, Michigan, or Spokane,
Washington, or Prescott, Arizona, just simply will not work.
Every child deserves access to quality education, but imposing a
nationwide standard will only hamper this goal with burdensome
regulations, and we have seen that failed policy under the No Child
Left Behind Act. This resolution pulls back the Federal overreach,
ensuring that the decisions will remain at the local level, and that is
why I support H.J. Res. 57 today.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 57.
This resolution is an extreme measure that will disrupt and delay the
implementation of the bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act, an
important law that replaces the failed policies of No Child Left Behind
by carefully balancing the need for more local control in education
with strong Federal civil rights protections for students.
Today, sadly, the promise of the Every Student Succeeds Act is in
jeopardy. This resolution appears to be part of a larger effort to
dismantle the oversight and enforcement responsibilities of the
Department of Education which would harm all students.
If my Republican friends are serious about successfully implementing
the
[[Page H1050]]
law we all worked so hard to pass, they would not be demolishing a key
set of regulations, and certainly not while States are currently
finalizing their plans to implement the new accountability systems and
public reporting requirements outlined in the regulations.
These regulations give States considerable flexibility and guidance.
For example, they provide additional time to identify schools for
comprehensive and targeted support. They ensure that parents are
notified if their school is identified for additional support and
explain how parents can get involved in their school's improvement
efforts, and they give States flexibility to use multiple indicators in
evaluating schools. These regulations are reasonable clarifications
that reinforce the intent of the law.
Of course, my colleagues might disagree with some elements of the
regulations, but this is the wrong way to change them. If my colleagues
were serious about changing the regulations, then they would involve
stakeholders and have a collaborative and transparent process to amend
the rules through the public notice and comment process.
Unfortunately, without critical rules for implementing the Every
Student Succeeds Act and the ability to write similar rules in the
future, I expect we will see two things happen, both of which are
detrimental:
Some States will take an anything-goes approach, which could hurt our
15 million public school students and, historically, is particularly
damaging to African-American students, Hispanic students, Native
American students, students with disabilities, and English-language
learners. Remember the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act
was about equity.
Other States, without clear rules for compliance, will simply
continue existing policies--many of which are a legacy of the No Child
Left Behind era--and miss out on the important flexibility and positive
changes in the new law.
Using the Congressional Review Act to dismantle important regulations
for the Every Student Succeeds Act will create a great deal of
uncertainty and threaten the implementation of the law. Certainty is
what our school districts need, and it risks critical equity
protections for disadvantaged students.
The resolution before us is an extreme measure. It is entirely
avoidable. The administration can revise these regulations, but
instead, the supporters of this resolution are choosing to gut this
important law by making implementation essentially unfeasible and
uncertain.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to stand with our students
across this country and vote ``no'' on this resolution, and then let's
work together to amend the regulations.
Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentlewoman: ESSA was a
landmark bipartisan achievement. Unfortunately, the Obama
administration's partisan implementation of it is what brings us here
today. Instead of choosing to take every opportunity to work with us,
the Obama administration is choosing to do through the regulatory
process what it couldn't achieve legislatively.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Costello), who is doing a great job for his State.
Mr. COSTELLO of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, last Congress, Members on
both sides of the aisle came together to restore education
decisionmaking authority to where it should be--at the State and local
level--devolving it from overreach by the Federal Government through
the Every Student Succeeds Act. It was a bipartisan accomplishment that
I speak very proudly of in my congressional district, as I know many
Members do in their congressional districts.
However, certain regulations were issued by the Department of
Education last year that threaten regulatory overreach, including
problematic provisions requiring States to issue uniform standards to
determine a teacher's level of effectiveness or ineffectiveness. Put
quite simply, the rule, as it was issued late in November, is not
consistent with the law that we passed that we were all so proud of. In
fact, it is necessary to use the CRA to override this rule in order to
maintain the integrity of the ESSA, which we are all very proud of
passing, to restore local control, and that goes from student testing
to curriculum, to teacher evaluation. What we have here, as written,
are regulations which threaten an overemphasis on students'
standardized testing scores when evaluating the quality of a teacher.
H.J. Res. 57 would override regulations because they are not
consistent with the law that we just passed. H.J. Res. 57 would
preserve the bipartisan accomplishments achieved in the ESSA by
allowing States to continue tailoring the ESSA to meet local needs
without overreach and without mandates from the Federal Government. Put
simply, what we are seeking to do here is to prevent the Federal
Government from once again nudging its nose into local and State
control over teacher evaluations, which was one of the main objectives
of the ESSA in the first instance.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congressman Rokita for his leadership.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Espaillat), who is a new member of the Education and the
Workforce Committee and is doing an excellent job so far.
Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today in strong opposition
to H.J. Res. 57. Not only is the rollback of these substantive measures
incredibly detrimental, but the process by which my Republican
colleagues are facilitating their actions is, quite simply, wrong. This
regulation is a product of months of work to come to a consensus on
what is best for all of our students.
Mr. Speaker, the Every Student Succeeds Act received strong
bipartisan support, and it received bicameral support when it passed
when 359 Members of the House and 85 Senators voted in favor of this
legislation. In fact, Senator Lamar Alexander, who serves as chairman
of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, said
back then that this bill was truly a Christmas miracle for American
children. However, just weeks into this administration, Republicans,
for purely political reasons and for political purposes, are actively
working to strip States and districts of the stability and clarity they
need to implement this law.
Approximately 50 million children attend public schools in the United
States. About 1.1 million of those students are in New York City Public
Schools. I think everyone agrees that we should be doing all we can do
to help and prepare our students, but this resolution does the exact
opposite. This regulation provides important guidance to ensure the
students are college and career ready. It helps schools identify
subgroups of students in need of additional academic support and help.
Dismantling this regulation will disrupt ways in which information
used to measure school performance and resource equity is reported,
ultimately resulting in our parents, teachers, and policymakers not
being equipped with the necessary data to make important decisions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Collins of New York). The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. ESPAILLAT. Further, rolling back this regulation directly targets
inner-city public schools and shows, at best, indifference to our
Nation's most vulnerable students. It will leave students--
specifically, low-income minority students and English-language
learners--without the protections and support intended by Congress.
I, of all people, understand this important measure to look out for
students with special English-language needs, coming from a low-income
immigrant family, and I implore my Republican colleagues to reconsider
this troublesome action.
Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester), who is a new member of the Education
and the Workforce Committee.
Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res.
57 today for two reasons. I believe that the majority's repeated use of
the Congressional Review Act this week
[[Page H1051]]
and last week is unnecessary, constraining, and, in this case, adds
cost. The Congressional Review Act has only been used successfully in
2000 one time, and already this month the House is considering its
eighth joint resolution of disapproval.
I believe in our role of oversight of the executive branch, but using
the blunt tool of the CRA to block regulatory action in an effort to
support and improve public education is an abuse of the CRA. The newly
confirmed Secretary of Education can already amend targeted rules like
the one this resolution is addressing without fully repealing the
guidance and preventing similar rules in the future.
The Every Student Succeeds Act was a major bipartisan accomplishment,
and I am particularly concerned about the uncertainty for the States
and local stakeholders caused by repealing these accountability
standards in the underlying rule.
In Delaware, just as in States across the country, local stakeholder
groups and State departments of education have been working together to
provide thorough feedback and guidance on these accountability rules
that the majority wants to repeal.
I have heard from my State board of education that repealing these
regulations would cause States to delay the development of their plans,
potentially costing them both time and money to gather feedback on a
significantly different set of guidelines for the plan, and, most
importantly, further delaying the implementation of changes to the
education system that our students need and deserve.
Mr. Speaker, my question to my colleagues would be: Why get rid of
the whole rule when it comes from a bill that ultimately happened in
such a bipartisan way? Why prevent accountability and guidance for
States?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30
seconds.
Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. I will oppose H.J. Res. 57, Mr. Speaker, and I
urge my colleagues to oppose H.J. Res. 57.
{time} 1615
Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
The effect of this action will not halt State implementation efforts.
Let me say that again. The effect of this action will not halt State
implementation efforts.
Our intent is to require clarity and consistency so implementation
can, in fact, continue. States are continuing to develop State plans
that comply with the law, as you have already seen being done across
the country. The States and school districts are in the driver's seat
here, Mr. Speaker, and they should continue moving forward.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California, (Ms. Judy Chu), the chair of the Congressional Asian
Pacific American Caucus.
Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong
opposition to H.J. Res. 57. This reckless measure rolls back the
progress made by the Every Student Succeeds Act, or ESSA, by making it
easier for schools to ignore vulnerable or underachieving students.
Before ESSA, American schools operated under the one-size-fits-all
model of No Child Left Behind. What we got was a lopsided understanding
of our education system--one that focused on meeting unforgiving
benchmarks and turned a blind eye to students who needed more support.
Then, after years of careful, bipartisan work, we finally succeeded
in passing ESSA last Congress. Thanks to the work of the Congressional
Tri-Caucus, this bill made needed changes to ensure that vulnerable
students, including English language learners and students of color,
didn't slip through the cracks. In fact, the accountability provisions
within ESSA were specifically designed to protect the rights of every
student and ensure that struggling schools have the resources and
support they need to succeed.
Now, by rescinding the rule which implements the core of this law,
Republicans are undoing all of that work in the name of relentless
deregulation. Worse, they are, once again, using the little-known
Congressional Review Act, which means no future administration can
issue a rule like this ever again.
Most Americans are unfamiliar with the Congressional Review Act
because, before this Congress, it has only been used once before. Now
Republicans are using it almost daily to weaken our government and
support fewer people.
With today's vote, Republicans are taking an ax to equity provisions
of ESSA and prioritizing politics over students. Rather than pass this
extreme measure, we should focus on a way to enforce ESSA and ensure
that every student, no matter their race, income level, or language
ability, has access to a quality education.
I urge my colleagues to prioritize our Nation's students and vote
``no'' on H.J. Res. 57.
Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to say to the
gentlewoman that I agree that we have to be careful to make sure
underserved children are not vulnerable, which is what we did in the
underlying law in a bipartisan manner when we passed it and when the
President signed the law.
I reject the premise that State and local leaders, however, cannot be
trusted to deliver an excellent education to all of their students.
More importantly, that premise was rejected by Congresses in ESSA
itself.
Beyond that, the criticism just levied is simply not true. The
Department of Education has the right and, indeed, the obligation to
enforce the law. That has never been in dispute.
There are clear requirements in this statute for States to develop
ways to hold their schools accountable and to report information about
school performance to parents and their communities. That duty
continues.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about the legal implications and the
chaos that this resolution would create if it were passed. I want to
share with you a brief story from a parent who has two sons with
special needs and who depends on strong accountability for her son's
success.
What parents across this country who have kids in public schools want
to see is a system that works for them. They are not so caught up in
which rule is being passed by who and who is doing what. They want to
make sure the learning needs of their child are met.
Frankly, a strong accountability system and a reliable accountability
system with parameters that are clear rather than a chaotic and
unpredictable one goes a long way to reassuring parents across this
country that the needs of their child are being met.
Here is a brief story from a parent with two sons with special needs:
My son Jacob is a freshman in high school. Today, he's a
straight A student well on his way to a great future. But it
wasn't always that way. He spent his early elementary school
years lacking the supports he needed to be successful in the
classroom.
At the beginning of fourth grade, he was in a self-
contained classroom, which supported his behavioral needs,
but not his academic needs. We were given the choice to ``opt
out'' of grade-level testing, but refused. It was the results
of those tests that gave us the data we needed to see where
he needed support and to see where he could excel
academically. We all saw he was working at or above grade-
level in many areas. It kept us accountable to planning his
successful future.
By the end of fourth grade, he was partially included in a
general education classroom. By middle school, he was fully
included in the general education classroom with minimal
supports in place. Without accountability standards in place
for students like Jacob, none of us--his parents, his
teachers, and even Jacob himself--would have been able to
track his upward trajectory.
I hear stories like this from so many of my constituents, Mr.
Speaker: kids with learning disabilities, kids who attend schools that
have pervasive achievement gaps between higher- and lower-income
students and students of color and White students.
Frankly, the accountability system that we have had and the
improvements that we built into it through the Every Student Succeeds
Act and this rulemaking process are the prime civil rights safeguards
that families across the country have so that they can, with
confidence, know that the public schools are required to meet the
learning needs of their child and that somebody is watching that, who
will watch the watchers, and that their only recourse isn't just
expensive litigation,
[[Page H1052]]
which the repeal of this rule would lead to more of, but, frankly, is
where the money is coming from and making sure that there is a degree
of controls in place that the learning of the child is being met.
Stories like Jacob's are the reason why so many organizations have
voiced their opposition to H.J. Res. 57.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a list of organizations that
have announced opposition.
The following organizations have all voiced their
opposition to House Joint Resolution 57:
Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC);
Congressional Black Caucus (CBC); Congressional Hispanic
Caucus (CHC); Alliance for Excellent Education; Association
of University Centers on Disabilities; Center for American
Progress; Children's Defense Fund; Consortium for Citizens
with Disabilities; Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates;
Democrats for Education Reform; Disability Rights Education &
Defense Fund.
Easterseals; The Education Trust; Judge David L. Bazelon
Center for Mental Health Law; League of United Latin American
Citizens; Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund
(MALDEF); NAACP; NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund,
Inc.; National Association of Councils on Developmental
Disabilities; National Center for Learning Disabilities;
National Council of La Raza; National Disability Rights
Network; National Down Syndrome Congress; National Indian
Education Association.
National Urban League; National Women's Law Center; New
Leaders; PolicyLink; Southeast Asia Resource Action Center
(SEARAC); Stand for Children; Teach For America; Teach Plus;
The New Teacher Project (TNTP); The Leadership Conference on
Civil and Human Rights; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; United
Negro College Fund (UNCF).
____
Chamber of Commerce of the
United States of America,
February 6, 2017.
To the Members of the United States Congress: The Chamber
opposes H.J. Res. 57, which would block regulations
implementing accountability provisions in the bipartisan
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).
The Chamber believes these regulations, although not
perfect, have provided states, districts, and schools the
guidance necessary to ensure an orderly transition from the
prior No Child Left Behind Act to the new, and far more
flexible, accountability provisions under ESSA.
The Chamber is concerned that repealing the regulations
could delay implementation of this critical new law. Over the
past year, states have been developing implementation plans
with input from thousands of stakeholders. Many states are in
the final stages of developing these plans and preparing them
for submission to the Department of Education. Repealing will
create unnecessary confusion and uncertainty.
The Chamber urges you to vote against H.J. Res. 57.
Sincerely,
Jack Howard.
____
Congressional Tri-Caucus Chairs Oppose Efforts To Undermine Public
Education
[For Immediate Release--Feb. 7, 2017]
Washington, DC.--Today, the Chairs of the Congressional
Tri-Caucus--composed of the Congressional Asian Pacific
American Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus, and the
Congressional Hispanic Caucus--released the following joint
statement in opposition to H.J. Res. 57, which would
undermine the Department of Education's authority to
implement and enforce key provisions of the Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESSA):
``H.J. Res. 57, the joint resolution to undermine
implementation of the bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act
(ESSA), is another step in the Republican attack on public
education and enforcement authority of the Department of
Education. First, President Trump nominates a champion of
privatization who is unfamiliar and unwilling to enforce key
civil rights protections for students. Now, Congressional
Republicans are ripping apart regulation to guide
implementation of the most important equity provisions of our
nation's new K-12 law.
``As leaders of the Congressional Asian Pacific American,
Black, and Hispanic Caucuses we fought to couple ESSA's
unprecedented state and local flexibility over school
accountability and improvement with strong federal
protections for our most vulnerable students. Without the
stability and clarity provided through regulation, plan
development stops, systems halt, and students and teachers
lose. While this regulation reflects the consensus of the
education and civil rights community, it is within the
purview of the new Republican administration to reexamine and
amend it as they see fit. However, rather than take this
responsible approach to implementing the new law, Republicans
have chosen to put politics before students.
``H.J. Res. 57 would leave key provisions of the law
completely unregulated indefinitely, leaving state systems
that serve our nation's more than 50 million public school
students in limbo and important civil rights obligations
unfulfilled. Faithful implementation of ESSA must honor both
the bipartisan intent of Congress and the longstanding civil
rights legacy of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
This reckless measure flies in the face of both. For these
reasons, we firmly oppose H.J. Res. 57.''
____
Consortium for Citizens
With Disabilities,
February 6, 2017.
Dear Representative: The co-chairs of the Consortium for
Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) Education Task Force, on
behalf of the CCD Education Taskforce, write in opposition of
H.J. Res 57 to rescind the accountability regulations under
the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).
The CCD Education Task Force advocates for Federal public
policy that ensures the self-determination, independence,
empowerment, integration, and inclusion of children and
adults with disabilities in all aspects of society. The CCD
Task Force sees these principles as critical elements in a
society that recognizes and respects the dignity and worth of
all its members.
The CCD Ed Task Force believes that the ESSA accountability
regulations are critical for meaningful implementation of
ESSA. The regulations clarify the statutory language in ESSA,
build upon ESSA's flexibility for school improvement and
provide a clarified role for families, educators and
stakeholders to share in the implementation process. Perhaps,
most importantly, the final regulations help assure that
States meaningfully develop accountability plans that will
create statewide systems to identify schools and districts
which need to target funds to intervene and support students
not meeting state-determined standards. We view this as
critical to helping shine a needed light on the education gap
for groups of students, including students with disabilities
so they can make important gains and achieve the same
education outcomes as their peers.
The passage of ESSA was a successful bi-partisan effort to
improve education for all students built upon the frame of
accountability. To rescind these regulations would not only
be a disservice to the spirit of ESSA and diminish the
efficacy of the law, but would also serve to undermine the
equity of educational opportunity for all students, including
students with disabilities.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact any of the co-chairs listed below.
Sincerely,
Lindsay E. Jones,
National Center for Learning Disabilities.
Laura Kaloi,
Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates.
Amanda Lowe,
National Disability Rights Network.
Kim Musheno,
Association of University Centers on Disability.
Cindy Smith,
National Assoc. of Councils on Developmental Disabilities.
____
The Leadership Conference
on Civil and Human Rights,
February 6, 2017.
Keep ESSA Implementation Moving Forward--Oppose H.J. Res. 57.
Dear Representative: On behalf of The Leadership Conference
on Civil and Human Rights and the 29 undersigned
organizations, we urge you to oppose H.J. Res. 57 and to
support continued implementation of the bipartisan Every
Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). In order for the latest
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 to fulfill its purpose as a civil rights law and for
implementation to comply with the requirements Congress set
forth, federal oversight is critical. The underlying
accountability and state plan regulation will help states,
districts, and schools to faithfully implement the law and
meet their legal obligations to historically marginalized
groups of students including students of color, students with
disabilities, and students who are English learners,
immigrants, girls, Native American, LGBTQ or low-income.
Congress should reject the effort to overturn these
regulations under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) and
should preserve critical protections for marginalized
students.
Over the course of legislative debate in 2015, Congress
reached several compromises which enshrined both meaningful
guardrails and state flexibility into the new law. It was
these compromises--the allowance of flexibility while still
maintaining core principles of fiscal responsibility and
protections for marginalized students--which led to the
passage of the ESSA. At the core is an offer to states--
federal funding in exchange for compliance with requirements
regarding accountability, protections for students, and
fiscal responsibility. States must not be permitted to take
federal funds while flouting the law's mandates. The
accountability and state plan regulation provides
clarification and timelines which will support the vital role
of the U.S. Department of Education in ensuring that states
hold up their end of that deal.
The process of soliciting public feedback on potential ESSA
regulations began long before a draft rule was even
published. On December 22, 2015 the Department of Education
issued a request for information and
[[Page H1053]]
noticed two public meetings, ``soliciting advice and
recommendations from interested parties prior to publishing
proposed regulations.'' Then, when draft rules were issued
more than five months later, the agency received over 21,000
public comments in response to the notice of proposed
rulemaking. After considering the voluminous feedback, the
Department of Education issued a final rule on November 29,
2016. This robust and transparent engagement process was
appropriate and needed--questions regarding the responsible
use of federal funds and the need to ensure that every
student succeeds generate considerable interest. Support for
the CRA and discarding this important regulation diminishes
the important time and thought dedicated to this process, and
the voices of parents, students, advocates, educators and
others who have sought to be heard.
ESSA can and should, ``provide all children significant
opportunity to receive a fair, equitable, and high-quality
education, and to close educational achievement gaps.'' These
lofty objectives, however, require vigilance and oversight by
the Department of Education and support from Members of
Congress. We urge you to oppose this resolution and to allow
for the continued implementation of the law. Should you have
any questions, please reach out to Liz King, Leadership
Conference Director of Education Policy.
Sincerely,
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights;
Alliance for Excellent Education; Association of
University Centers on Disabilities; Children's Defense
Fund; Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates;
Democrats for Education Reform; Disability Rights
Education & Defense Fund; Easterseals; The Education
Trust; Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health
Law.
League of United Latin American Citizens; MALDEF; NAACP;
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.;
National Association of Councils on Developmental
Disabilities; National Center for Learning
Disabilities; National Council of La Raza; National
Disability Rights Network; National Down Syndrome
Congress; National Indian Education Association;
National Urban League; National Women's Law Center; New
Leaders; PolicyLink; Southeast Asia Resource Action
Center (SEARAC); Stand for Children; Teach For America;
Teach Plus; TNTP; UNCF.
____
The Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc.,
Democrats for Education Reform, The Education Trust,
The Leadership Conference, National Center for Learning
Disabilities, National Council of La Raza, U.S. Chamber
of Commerce,
February 6, 2017.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi: Over the past two
years, our organizations have worked together--across lines
that often divide us on matters of public policy--to secure
provisions in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) that we
all think are vitally important to our nation's future, and
ensure those provisions are implemented well in the states.
Our common goals include:
State-adopted standards aligned with the demands of
postsecondary education and the workforce;
Annual statewide assessment of all students in grades 3-8
and once again in high school, with a strictly limited
exception for students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities;
Transparent, accessible reporting of data--disaggregated by
race, income, disability status, and English proficiency--at
the state, district, and school levels, so educators,
parents, and students themselves have objective information
on where they are on their journey to college and career
readiness; and
Statewide accountability systems that include achievement
and graduation-rate goals for all groups of students, rate
schools in large part on the academic performance of all
groups of students, and require action when any group of
students consistently underperforms.
The overwhelmingly bipartisan legislation reflects these
principles. It grants states broad discretion to design their
systems while holding them responsible for working within-
federal guardrails to design systems that ensure genuine
equity and excellence for all students.
Since ESSA's passage, we have collectively been working in
states across the country to equip diverse partners to push
for and support the development of state systems focused on
equity and improvement.
One important piece of this process is the adoption of
regulations, which provide clarity and certainty on both the
key principles of the statute and the processes for
implementation.
The U.S. Department of Education finalized those
regulations in November. But just as states and state
advocates are putting pen to paper on their state plans, you
are considering a resolution disapproving of the regulations.
This action will cause unnecessary confusion, disrupting the
work in states and wasting time that we cannot afford to
waste.
Just as we believe the Every Student Succeeds Act
incorporates our principles, we believe the regulations do as
well. And they provide states with the clarity they need to
move forward. We do not support H.J. Res 57 and we ask you to
vote no.
Mr. POLIS. The opposing organizations include Alliance for Excellent
Education; Association of University Centers on Disabilities;
Children's Defense Fund; Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities;
Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates; Democrats for Education
Reform; Easterseals; The Education Trust, League of United Latin
American Citizens; Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund;
NAACP; National Center for Learning Disabilities; National Council of
La Raza; National Down Syndrome Congress; National Urban League;
National Women's Law Center; Southeast Asia Resource Action Center;
Stand for Children; Teach For America; United Negro College Fund. And
even, Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has weighed in on this
bill to oppose these efforts to strip away the accountability system
from our public education.
I also want to point out that I was opposed to the earlier resolution
on the floor today, which would unravel the Department of Education's
regulation on teacher preparation.
The intent of the teacher preparation program, as was argued here,
was to provide more transparency and accountability around the quality
of teacher preparation programs.
This Republican quest to abolish accountability for our public
schools is exactly the opposite of what I hear from parents and
families in my district who want to make sure that we have more
transparency and more accountability, not less.
While I think we all can agree that a great education starts with a
great teacher, we ought to be able to make sure that teacher
preparation programs are charged with adequately preparing teachers and
that we have some objective criteria for checking whether teacher
preparation programs are doing a good job or doing a poor job.
The regulation also requires that TEACH Grant recipients attend high-
performing teacher preparation programs. It is not a matter of picking
winners or losers. It is simply a solution towards making sure our
limited taxpayer dollars for professional development and teacher
training are used effectively. If money is going to be invested in
teachers at high-needs schools, we want to make sure that teachers are
attending high-quality programs.
Now we have had a robust debate about the implications of
accountability and the real impact it has for States, districts, and
students; but I want people to focus on the story of parents and
families in their district who benefited from the accountability system
that previously existed and is improved upon through the Every Student
Succeeds Act.
It walks away from accountability--that is what this CRA does. If
this CRA passes, it doesn't just get rid of a particular set of rules
around accountability. Everybody might have things they want to change.
There is a process for changing those and a new Secretary in place who
can certainly begin that process. No, it wouldn't do that.
It would abolish the entire rules and effectively prevent the
Secretary from promulgating new rules around accountability, leaving it
completely unknown to the States and the school districts what criteria
the Federal Government was looking for in improving State-based
accountability programs.
Parents like Jacob's wouldn't know if the Federal Government would be
there to make sure that school districts had a plan to meet the
learning needs of every child.
The reason it is opposed so vociferously by civil rights
organizations is none of us would know whether the State accountability
plan had a plan to close the achievement gap to make sure that schools
can cater to the needs of all kids, regardless of their race or income.
That is what is lacking by passage of this CRA. It would effectively
handcuff the Secretary of Education, prevent her from implementing the
overwhelming will of this body, Democratic and Republican, to maintain
the civil
[[Page H1054]]
rights and accountability safeguards of No Child Left Behind; by moving
away from the one-size-fits-all accountability formula towards
increased State flexibility, so long as the basic goal of meeting the
learning needs of all students were met by State level plans.
That is at the heart of why we need accountability in the Every
Student Succeeds Act. This is why we need guidance from the Department
of Education through rules and regulations.
The resolution before us today would completely undermine the civil
rights provisions of the Every Student Succeeds Act and would prevent
the Department of Education from even considering new rules and
regulations to protect the civil rights of Americans across our
country.
Those with learning disabilities and those without, parents across
the country have banded together to oppose this Congressional Review
Act.
I urge my colleagues to reject this attempt to undermine our public
schools and undermine accountability. I oppose this resolution, and I
urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The gentleman talks about accountability. I want to reassure all the
Members here that will be voting on this joint resolution that we are
not throwing accountability out the window.
What we decided last year when we passed the Every Student Succeeds
Act is that accountability was a good thing. But the best leaders and
the best persons to determine what that accountability should be and
what that accountability should look like are found in our States and
are found in our local jurisdictions. They know our best assets the
best--our best assets being our children. They know what they need.
So we are not throwing accountability out the window. We are saying
accountability is to be measured at the State level by the States, by
the local jurisdictions, and they are to simply report to the
Department of Education what their accountability plan is in a
transparent way so that, again, parents, teachers, and taxpayers can
decide if that State is doing a good job, so that people like the
NAACP--if they are and should be, as we all should be, worried about
achievement gaps--could affect how to close those achievement gaps in
those respective States and, by the way, perhaps come up with a more
effective way, a better plan, a more aggressive plan to close that
achievement gap rather than the one-size-fits-all bureaucracy that is
the Federal Department of Education. That is the whole point.
Secondly, regarding civil rights. Nothing in this resolution that
takes back this draconian rulemaking from the Department of Education
affects civil rights. We are very clear in the Every Student Succeeds
Act that the civil rights protections remain. We agreed with that in a
bipartisan way, and all of that remains. Don't let the gentleman from
Colorado scare you into thinking anything different.
There was a lot of talk about uncertainty from previous speakers--
uncertainty for States--and that blocking implementation of these
regulations will create that uncertainty. Let me address that for just
a couple of minutes.
We, Congress, cannot allow Federal agencies to ignore the clear
prohibitions against executive overreach. These regulations clearly
attempt to reassert Federal control that was returned to the States by
Congress under ESSA.
{time} 1630
Repealing these regulations is the only way to give States and school
districts the certainty that they need with sufficient time to move the
implementation process forward. The law itself provides enough
guidance. We were very specific how we wrote this law. We were very
specific in the requirements needed. That removes the need to have the
kind of rulemaking that the Department of Education, either through
habit or through direct intent, is trying to do here. We don't need to
do it here.
The law itself lays out clear criteria for the State plans. It states
explicitly that the onus is on the Department of Education to
demonstrate how a plan does not comply with the law that we wrote and
that the President signed into law. It does not require, and the States
are not required, to go jump through the hoops that the Department is
trying to have them jump through now through this rulemaking.
The law also requires the Department to review the State plans with
deference to State and local judgments. The Department is trying to
take that judgment away from the States and put it under its own
umbrella.
Under the law, as long as States can demonstrate that their plans
comply with the statute, they will be approved. We wrote that into the
law. Because of this, States can have the certainty that the work they
began can continue. The Department, with this rule, is trying to
unravel all that. The resolution stops the Department from doing that.
I know Congressman Costello mentioned teacher performance. Others
have talked about student assessment participation rates. Let me give
you a few examples for the record, Mr. Speaker. ESSA allowed States to
determine how to hold schools accountable for assessing students. The
final rule limits States to only four options for assessing students
and requires schools to implement a plan to address low test
participation--not required in the law, not part of what we are doing
here. The Department, by doing that, is making up law.
Regarding teacher performance and some things that Mr. Costello
referenced, ESSA explicitly prohibited the Secretary from mandating the
creation of teacher evaluation systems. As the Federal Government, we
are getting out of the business of teacher evaluation systems. It
didn't mean the States couldn't do it. It didn't mean that most States
wouldn't do it. However, the final rule requires States to establish a
statewide definition for what an ineffective teacher means that
differentiates between categories of teachers.
Now, if you look at this in effect, in practical terms, it would be
almost impossible for States to fulfill this requirement without
implementing a teacher and school leader evaluation, something the law
specifically didn't require, specifically prohibited. Yet, here we are
with the Department's rule basically making States do it. Not what was
intended. Not what we wrote. Not what we voted on on the floor of this
House, and not what was signed into law by the President of the United
States at the time.
So these are the kinds of things that we are fighting against here,
Mr. Speaker. These are the kinds of things that H.J. Res. 57, and H.J.
Res. 58 for that matter, would stop the Department from doing. H.J.
Res. 57 protects the positive reforms Congress made with Every Student
Succeeds Act and ensures that those reforms are implemented as Congress
intended. In doing so, the resolution preserves State and local control
over K-12 education and provides States and school districts the
certainty they need to proceed with the plans that they are already in
the process of writing.
That is why a number of groups--including the National Governors
Association; AASA, the School Superintendents Association; and the
Council of the Great City Schools--have spoken out in support of the
resolution. It is also why the National School Boards Association
supports this resolution, and it is why H.J. Res. 57 is supported by
Citizens Against Government Waste.
I am confident that Congress will continue working in a bipartisan
manner to empower our State and local communities to take the lead in
accountability. There will be accountability. By putting a stop to the
Obama administration's flawed and overreaching accountability
regulation, however, we can keep the promise we made to reduce the
Federal role, restore local control, and ensure all children receive
the high-quality education that they deserve.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to voice my strong
opposition to H.J. Res. 57, which is another Republican proposal to
erode the oversight and enforcement authority of the Department of
Education.
In 2015, Congress responded to the voice of the American people by
passing the Every
[[Page H1055]]
Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) with bipartisan and bicameral support. This
sweeping rewrite of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act gave
states and local boards of education greater flexibility to implement
plans to ensure student achievement, resource equity and greater
accountability.
I was happy to support the ESSA after seeking the advice of
experienced educators and education stakeholders from Rockdale, DeKalb,
and Gwinnett Counties, as well as throughout Georgia.
H.J. Res 57, on the other hand, flies in the face of Congressional
intent by gutting a key ESSA rule developed with, and supported by
teachers, civil rights organizations, parents and states. H.J. Res 57
removes civil rights protections and blocks improvements to our
nation's public education system by dismantling data-reporting
requirements that ensure that the needs of underperforming groups in
all subgroups are adequately supported. This includes African
Americans, Latinos, and students with disabilities. The Administration
and my Republican colleagues are playing political games that will
ultimately harm taxpayers, teachers, and our nation's most
disadvantaged students.
During my time in Congress, I have worked to ensure that all students
have access to a world-class education regardless of their background
or zip code. I believe that all children deserve a quality education
and that no child should ever fall between the cracks. I will continue
fighting against republican attempts to divest funding from public
education and reduce equal opportunity for all students.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint
Resolution 57. I am pleased to join Congressman Todd Rokita as an
original cosponsor.
As a parent, I know that success looks different for each child. I
frequently hear from parents, teachers, and school boards in my
district that with more local flexibility, they can better meet the
needs of local students. This is why the Every Student Succeeds Act
replaced the one-size-fits-all approach to K-12 education, and gave
power back to states and school districts. Unfortunately, the previous
administration used executive authority to impose an inflexible
accountability system and take away the local voices; voices that are
critical in determining how schools should be held accountable. Local
schools, teachers, and parents, not Washington bureaucrats, know best
what success looks like.
Mr. Speaker, let's return authority where it belongs--with teachers,
schools, and school districts.
Success and accountability should be about meeting students' needs,
not Washington's mandates. I urge my colleagues to support passage of
House Joint Resolution 57.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 91, the previous question is ordered on
the joint resolution.
The question is on engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
____________________