U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

98–732 PDF 2016

NEXT STEPS FOR K–12 EDUCATION: 

UPHOLDING THE LETTER AND INTENT 

OF THE EVERY STUDENT 

SUCCEEDS ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 25, 2016 

Serial No. 114–40 

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

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Matt Salmon, Arizona 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

Bradley Byrne, Alabama 

David Brat, Virginia 

Buddy Carter, Georgia 

Michael D. Bishop, Michigan 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Carlos Curbelo, Florida 

Elise Stefanik, New York 

Rick Allen, Georgia 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Ranking Member 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

Mark Pocan, Wisconsin 

Mark Takano, California 

Hakeem S. Jeffries, New York 

Katherine M. Clark, Massachusetts 

Alma S. Adams, North Carolina 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director 

Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on February 25, 2016 ....................................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Kline, Hon. John, Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce 01 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Scott, Hon. Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’, Ranking Member, Committee on Education and the Workforce ............................................................................. 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6 

Statement of Witnesses: 

King, John B., Hon., Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Education ....... 7 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10 

Additional Submissions: 

Mr. Scott: 

Letter dated February 25, 2016 from Dignity In Schools ...................... 58 

Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from the state 

of Pennsylvania: 

Letter dated February 25, 2016 from National School Boards Association (NSBA) ............................................................................................ 61 

Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the state of South 

Carolina: 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 70 

Questions submitted for the record by: 

Chairman Kline ......................................................................................... 74 

Mr. Thompson ............................................................................................ 77 

Messer, Hon. Luke, a Representative in Congress from the state 

of Indiana ............................................................................................... 77 

Acting Secretary King, response to questions submitted for the record ...... 79 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(1) 

NEXT STEPS FOR K–12 EDUCATION: 

UPHOLDING THE LETTER AND INTENT 

OF THE EVERY STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT 

Thursday, February 25, 2016 

House of Representatives 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2175 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Kline [chairman 

of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Kline, Wilson of South Carolina, Foxx, 

Roe, Thompson, Walberg, Guthrie, Rokita, Barletta, Messer, Byrne, 

Carter, Bishop, Grothman, Curbelo, Stefanik, Allen, Scott, Hinojosa, Davis, Courtney, Fudge, Polis, Wilson of Florida, Bonamici, 

Pocan, Takano, Clark, Adams, and DeSaulnier. 

Staff Present: Janelle Gardner, Coalitions and Members Services 

Coordinator; Kathlyn Ehl, Professional Staff Member; Tyler Hernandez, Press Secretary; Amy Raaf Jones, Director of Education 

and Human Resources Policy; Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk; 

Dominique McKay, Deputy Press Secretary; Brian Newell, Communications Director; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Lauren 

Reddington, Deputy Press Secretary; Alex Ricci, Legislative Assistant; Mandy Schaumburg, Education Deputy Director and Senior 

Counsel; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Juliane Sullivan, Staff 

Director; Leslie Tatum, Professional Staff Member; Brad Thomas, 

Senior Education Policy Advisor; Sheariah Yousefi, Legislative Assistant; Tylease Alli, Minority Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator; 

Austin Barbera, Minority Staff Assistant; Jacque Chevalier, Minority Senior Education Policy Advisor; Denise Forte, Minority Staff 

Director; Brian Kennedy, Minority General Counsel; Saloni 

Sharma, Minority Press Assistant; Michael Taylor, Minority Education Policy Fellow; and Arika Trim, Minority Press Secretary. 

Chairman KLINE. A quorum being present, the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce will come to order. 

Good morning, welcome back. 

Mr. KING. Thank you very much. 

Chairman KLINE. We really appreciate the opportunity to have 

you with us twice in one week. I know that is unusual. Today, we 

are going to discuss the steps the Department of Education is taking and will be taking to implement the Every Student Succeeds 

Act. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

2 

Replacing No Child Left Behind was a significant achievement 

that was desperately needed and long overdue. The law represented the largest expansion of Federal control over K–12 

schools, and it was based on the flawed premise that Washington 

knows best what students need in the classroom. 

The Federal Government imposed rigid rules and punitive actions on States and schools in areas vital to a child’s education, like 

which teachers to hire and fire, how to gauge school performance, 

and how to fix underperforming schools. 

It did not take long before State and local leaders were raising 

concerns that this top-down approach would not work. Their concerns were affirmed year after year as we experienced little, if any, 

improvement in graduation rates, proficiency in reading and math, 

and the achievement gaps separating poor and minority students 

from their peers. Frustration among parents and teachers went up, 

while student achievement remained largely flat. Despite the good 

intentions behind the law, and they were good intentions, millions 

of children were left behind. 

To make matters worse, the administration spent years pushing 

a convoluted waiver scheme, which doubled down on the false hope 

that Washington could fix the problems in our schools. States and 

schools were subjected to even more Federal requirements in areas 

like standards and teacher evaluations. They were forced to choose 

between onerous requirements prescribed in Federal law and onerous requirements prescribed by the Secretary of Education. 

If we learned anything throughout the process to replace No 

Child Left Behind, it is that the American people are tired of 

Washington micromanaging their classrooms. They are desperate 

for a different approach to K–12 education, one that will significant 

reduce the Federal role and restore store and local control. This is 

precisely the approach taken by the Every Student Succeeds Act. 

Under the new law, authority over accountability, teacher quality, and school improvement is restored to State and local leaders. 

The law also brings new transparency and accountability to the department’s rulemaking process, ends the era of federally mandated 

high-stakes testing, repeals dozens of ineffective programs, and 

sets the department on the path of becoming smaller, not bigger. 

Furthermore, due to the administration’s actions in recent years 

and the public outcry that ensued, the Every Student Succeeds Act 

includes unprecedented restrictions on the authority of the Secretary of Education, ending the days when one individual imposed 

his or her own agenda on our classrooms. 

The Wall Street Journal described the new law as quote ‘‘The 

largest devolution of Federal control to the States in a quarter-century,’’ close quote. 

A letter written by a coalition of organizations representing governors, State lawmakers, teachers, parents, principals, and superintendents says ‘‘The Every Student Succeeds Act is clear, education decision-making now rests with States and districts, and the 

Federal role is to support and inform those decisions.’’ They also 

urge the Department of Education to honor congressional intent, 

which brings us to the heart of today’s hearing. 

Despite our success in replacing No Child Left Behind, the real 

work to improve K–12 education is just beginning. The focus now 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

3 

shifts to leaders in State capitals and local communities who will 

use the tools and authority in the new law to build a better education for their children. If they are going to succeed, they will 

need a Department of Education that behaves like a partner, not 

a dictator. 

I have described countless times the shortfalls of No Child Left 

Behind. While it may seem unnecessary at a hearing on the future 

of K–12 education, we need to remember where we have been as 

we look to where we want to go. 

Congress did not want to repeat the mistakes of the past, and 

we certainly did not want a Department of Education that would 

continue to substitute its will for the will of Congress and the 

American people. 

Quite the opposite, we wanted new policies that would empower 

parents, teachers, and State and local education leaders. Congress 

promised to reduce the Federal role and restore local control, and 

we intend to keep our promise. 

That is why we are here today. We want to learn what actions 

the department intends to take to implement the law and help ensure the department acts in a manner that strictly adheres to the 

letter and intent of the law. 

Dr. King, this committee stands ready to assist you in that effort. 

The reforms you are now implementing were the result of bipartisan consensus, and we will remain actively engaged as the department moves forward. There is a lot of work to do, especially in 

every State and school district across the country. The department 

must get this right so every child can receive the excellent education they deserve. 

I want to thank you again for being with us today. I know it is 

a very big day for you. Again, I wish you good luck in this afternoon’s endeavor. I will now recognize Mr. Scott for his opening remarks. 

[The The Statement of Chairman Kline follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. John Kline, Chairman 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Good morning. Welcome back, Acting Secretary King. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to have you with us twice in one week. Today we will discuss the steps 

the Department of Education is taking and will be taking to implement the Every 

Student Succeeds Act. 

Replacing No Child Left Behind was a significant achievement that was desperately needed and long overdue. The law represented the largest expansion of federal control over K–12 schools, and it was based on the flawed premise that Washington knows best what students need in the classroom. The federal government imposed rigid rules and punitive actions on states and schools in areas vital to a 

child’s education, like which teachers to hire and fire, how to gauge school performance, and how to fix underperforming schools. 

It didn’t take long before state and local leaders were raising concerns that this 

top-down approach wouldn’t work. Their concerns were affirmed year after year as 

we experienced little – if any – improvement in graduation rates, proficiency in 

reading and math, and the achievement gap separating poor and minority students 

from their peers. Frustration among parents and teachers went up, while student 

achievement remained flat. Despite the good intentions behind the law, millions of 

children were left behind. 

To make matters worse, the administration spent years pushing a convoluted 

waiver scheme, which doubled-down on the false hope that Washington could fix the 

problems in our schools. States and schools were subjected to even more federal requirements in areas like standards and teacher evaluations. They were forced to 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

4 

choose between onerous requirements prescribed in federal law and onerous requirements prescribed by the secretary of education. 

If we learned anything throughout process to replace No Child Left Behind, it’s 

that the American people are tired of Washington micromanaging their classrooms. 

They are desperate for a different approach to K–12 education, one that will significantly reduce the federal role and restore state and local control. That is precisely 

the approach taken by the Every Student Succeeds Act. 

Under the new law, authority over accountability, teacher quality, and school improvement is restored to state and local leaders. The law also brings new transparency and accountability to the department’s rulemaking process, ends the era of 

federally-mandated high-stakes testing, repeals dozens of ineffective programs, and 

sets the department on the path to becoming smaller, not bigger. Furthermore, due 

to the administration’s actions in recent years and the public outcry that ensued, 

the Every Student Succeeds Act includes unprecedented restrictions on the authority of the secretary of education, ending the days when one individual imposed his 

or her own agenda on our classrooms. 

The Wall Street Journal described the new law as the ‘‘largest devolution of federal control to the states in a quarter-century.’’ A letter written by a coalition of organizations representing governors, state lawmakers, teachers, parents, principals, 

and superintendents says, ‘‘[The Every Student Succeeds Act] is clear: Education decision-making now rests with states and districts, and the federal role is to support 

and inform those decisions.’’ They also urge the Department of Education to ‘‘honor 

congressional intent,’’ which brings us to the heart of today’s hearing. 

Despite our success replacing No Child Left Behind, the real work to improve K– 

12 education is just beginning. The focus now shifts to leaders in state capitals and 

local communities who will use the tools and authority in the new law to build a 

better education for their children. And if they are going to succeed, they will need 

a Department of Education that behaves like a partner – not dictator. 

I’ve described countless times the shortfalls of No Child Left Behind. While it may 

seem unnecessary at a hearing on the future of K–12 education, we need to remember where we have been as we look to where we want to go. Congress did not want 

to repeat the mistakes of the past, and we certainly did not want a Department of 

Education that would continue to substitute its will for the will of Congress and the 

American people. Quite the opposite, we wanted new policies that would empower 

parents, teachers, and state and local education leaders. Congress promised to reduce the federal role and restore local control, and we intend to keep our promise. 

That’s why we are here today. We want to learn what actions the department intends to take to implement the law and to help ensure the department acts in a 

manner that strictly adheres to the letter and intent of the law. Dr. King, this committee stands ready to assist you in that effort. The reforms you are now implementing were the result of bipartisan consensus, and we will remain actively engaged as the department moves forward. There is a lot of work to do, especially in 

every state and school district across the country. The department must get this 

right so every child can receive the excellent education they deserve. 

Thank you again for being with us today. I will now recognize Ranking Member 

Scott for his opening remarks. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we are 

here today to discuss the critical role of the Department of Education in implementing the Every Student Succeeds Act. 

We came together last year to write and pass a strong bipartisan 

law that was worthy of the President’s signature. This was no 

small feat, and I am proud of our collective effort. I am proud of 

the role the House Democrats played in producing a new K–12 education law that I believe will fulfill the ESEA’s original promise as 

a fundamental civil rights law. 

At a time when Congress is often chastised for its brokenness 

and lack of compromise, we clearly accomplished a great deal by 

coming to a consensus to pass this major legislation, but passing 

legislation is only one step. 

We all agree that fulfilling the promise of Every Student Succeeds Act rests on successful implementation that honors Congress’ 

long-standing commitment and intent of the ESEA; that is proCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

5 

moting and protecting the right to an educational opportunity for 

every child, regardless of race, income, language status, or disability. 

ESSA repealed the one-size-fits-all approach of No Child Left Behind with increased flexibility for States and school districts, but 

with flexibility comes responsibility. States will be tasked with developing new multimeasure accountability systems, implementing 

more innovative assessment systems, and providing support to 

school districts to ensure that low performing schools improve and 

meet the needs of all students. 

Getting this right will be hard work. The Federal Government 

has an important role to play in setting high expectations both for 

systems and for the students those systems serve. We have to 

maintain vigorous oversight and enforcement to ensure that these 

expectations are met. 

Simply put, ESSA returns the decision-making to the States and 

local government, but this new law is not a blank check. There are 

Federal guidelines, and States and school districts must comply 

with those guidelines, and an appropriate regulatory framework is 

necessary to ensure that States and school districts are empowered 

to fully comply with the Federal law. 

We know from experience that when Federal Government turns 

a blind eye or leaves States without a meaningful regulatory 

framework, it is the most vulnerable children, children of color, 

English learners, students with disabilities, and low-income students who frequently lose out. 

We experienced this under both Democratic and Republican administrations. That is why I am glad to see the Department of 

Education, under the leadership of Acting Secretary King, the Department is quickly beginning the process to faithfully implement 

the new law. 

Part of the process as dictated by the Administrative Procedures 

Act will be the Department of Education’s promulgation of rules 

and regulations to clarify the language and statutory terms and requirements. This congressionally dictated responsibility is critical 

to helping the States and districts move forward expeditiously. 

While the statute includes some specific restrictions on Federal 

prescription in limited circumstances, not a single provision of the 

law prevents the Department of Education from promulgating regulations, including important areas like assessments, accountability, and interventions. 

Now Secretary King is not the only one with important work to 

do. As we move forward, State chiefs, State legislatures, and school 

districts must work collaboratively with all the stakeholders to ensure that the voices of parents, teachers, students, and civil rights 

communities are heard in State capitals and school board meetings 

across the country. 

I understand that over 370 organizations and individuals have 

already provided recommendations to the department regarding 

the regulatory process. In my own reading of the public comments, 

I saw many individuals and groups requesting additional regulatory clarity, and this includes the Secretary’s responsibility to define vague terms, set appropriate parameters, and providing options to fulfill the new legal requirements. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

6 

In addition, the State and local leaders will need to rise to the 

occasion and recognize their important responsibility to fight for 

strong student focused policies. 

I look forward to hearing from the Acting Secretary today and at 

his confirmation hearing this afternoon, so I hope we can remove 

the ‘‘Acting’’ part of his title very soon. We’re look forward to hearing his testimony about what we can do to faithfully implement the 

law in a way that honors Congress’ intent to protect the civil rights 

of all students. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The Statement of Ranking Member Scott follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Mr. Chairman, we are here today to discuss the critical role of the Department 

of Education in the implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act. 

Early last year, this committee’s process for reauthorization of the Elementary 

and Secondary Education act started as partisan and ideological. We marked up and 

passed a bill that the White House, House Democrats, and the education and civil 

rights communities resoundingly rejected. 

But ultimately, we came together to write and pass a strong bipartisan law that 

was worthy of the President’s signature. This was no small feat, and I am proud 

of our collective effort. I am proud of the role House Democrats played in producing 

a new K–12 education law that I believe will fulfill the ESEA’s promise as a fundamental civil rights law. 

At a time when Congress is often chastised for its brokenness and lack of compromise, we clearly accomplished a great deal by coming to consensus to pass this 

major legislation. 

But passing legislation is only one step of many. We all agree that the fulfilling 

the promise of the Every Student Succeeds Act rests in successful implementation 

that honors Congress’ longstanding commitment and intent of the ESEA: promoting 

and protecting the right to educational opportunity for every child, regardless of 

race, income, language status, or disability. 

ESSA repealed the one-size-fits-all approach of No Child Left Behind with increased flexibility for states and school districts. But, with flexibility comes responsibility. States will be tasked with developing new multi-measure accountability systems, implementing more innovative assessment systems, and providing support to 

school districts to ensure that low-performing schools improve and meet the needs 

of all students. 

Getting this right is hard work, and the federal government has an important role 

to play in setting high expectations – both for systems and for the students those 

systems serve – and maintaining vigorous oversight and enforcement to ensure 

those expectations matter. 

Simply put, while the ESSA returns much decision-making to the state and local 

level, this new law is not a blank check. There are federal guardrails with which 

States and school districts must comply. 

Democrats fought for those provisions because we know from experience that 

when the federal government turns a blind eye or leaves states without a meaningful regulatory framework, it is the most vulnerable children – children of color, 

English learners, students with disabilities, and low-income children – that lose out. 

We’ve experienced this under both Democratic and Republican administrations. 

That’s why I am glad that the Department of Education, under the leadership of 

Acting Secretary King, quickly began the process to faithfully implement this new 

law. And part of that process, as dictated in the Administrative Procedures Act, will 

be the Department of Education’s promulgation of rules and regulations to clarify 

vague statutory terms and requirements. This congressionally-dictated responsibility is critical for helping states and school districts move forward expeditiously. 

Not a single provision in the Every Student Succeeds Act prevents the Department of Education from promulgating regulations, including in important areas like 

assessments, accountability, and interventions. 

Let me be clear: House Democrats would never have supported, and the President 

of the United States would have never signed, a law that revoked rulemaking authority or set a dangerous precedent when it comes to the federal government’s role 

in protecting the civil rights of all students. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

7 

Now, Acting Secretary King is not the only one with important work to do. As 

the process moves forward, state chiefs, state legislatures, and school district leaders must work collaboratively with all stakeholders to ensure that the voices of parents, teachers, students, and the civil rights community are heard in state capitols 

and school board meetings across the country. 

I am pleased that 370 organizations and individuals have already provided recommendations to the Department of Education regarding the regulatory process. In 

my own reading of the public comments, I saw many individuals and groups requesting additional regulatory clarity. This includes defining vague terms, setting 

parameters, and providing options to fulfill new legal requirements. In addition, 

state and local leaders will need to rise to the occasion and recognize their important responsibility to fight for strong student-focused policies. 

I look forward to hearing from Acting Secretary King about the work he is doing 

over the course of this year to faithfully implement this law in a way that honors 

Congress’ intent to protect the civil rights of all students. Thank you. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. Pursuant to Committee 

Rule 7(c), all members will be permitted to submit written statements to be included in the permanent hearing record, and without 

objection, the hearing record will remain open for 14 days to allow 

such statements and other extraneous material referenced during 

the hearing to be submitted for the official hearing record. 

Normally at this time I would introduce our witness, but he 

should be familiar with everybody here, since he was here yesterday. I do have to ask you to stand and raise your right hand, 

please. 

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give 

will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? 

Mr. KING. I do. 

Chairman KLINE. Let the record reflect Dr. King answered in the 

affirmative again. I think since it has been less than 24 hours since 

you were here, I probably will not need to explain the lighting system again. It has not changed overnight. It is still pretty much like 

it was yesterday. 

With that understanding, sir, you are recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN B. KING, ACTING SECRETARY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Mr. KING. Thank you very much. Chairman Kline, Ranking 

Member Scott, and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to speak about how the Department of Education intends 

to implement the Every Student Succeeds Act. I commend Congress for passing this law with strong bipartisan support. 

The passage of this law is a major accomplishment and the beginning of the road as we build on efforts to expand educational excellence and equity in partnership with States, districts, communities, and educators. 

ESSA presents us with a moment of both opportunity and moral 

responsibility. The new law reauthorizes the original Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which was a civil rights law 

that must be viewed in the context of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 

Responsibility to ensure that implementation of the new law 

lives up to its civil rights heritage rests with leaders in States, districts, and with all of us. 

ESSA advances equity by upholding critical protections and 

maintaining dedicated resources for America’s most disadvantaged 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

8 

students. Importantly, the law maintains expectations that action 

will be taken to improve opportunities for students in schools that 

chronically under perform, that do not improve low graduation 

rates, and that do not ensure progress for all student groups. 

The new law also embodies much of what the Obama administration has supported over the last seven years. For the first time, 

ESSA enshrines in law high-stakes State chosen learning standards, so that all students are prepared for college and careers. The 

law supports local innovation and builds on this administration’s 

historic investments in quality preschool. 

ESSA also requires that information on student progress is 

shared through annual State-wide assessments, and the law supports State efforts to audit and streamline assessments so that all 

State and local tests are high quality and worth taking. 

Importantly, ESSA builds on work already underway to raise expectations for students and established locally tailored systems for 

school improvement in States. The law rightly shifts responsibility 

for developing strategies to support the highest needs students and 

schools to State and local decision-makers, and away from the onesize-fits-all mandates of No Child Left Behind; it creates opportunities for States to reclaim the goal of a rigorous, well-rounded education for every child. 

There also is a continued role in ESSA for the Federal Government to construct guardrails to protect our children’s civil rights. 

I and everyone at the Department of Education take that responsibility very seriously. 

ESSA is a big and complex law with new pieces related to data 

reporting, accountability, support systems, programs, and authorities. At the Federal level, our role is to support States and districts, 

improve opportunities for students, investing in research, scaling 

what works, ensuring transparency, and providing guardrails to 

ensure educational equity. 

Ultimately, we all want quality implementation of the law that 

supports States, districts, and schools in helping every student to 

succeed. We all want to build on the progress educators and students have made in recent years; demonstrated through our Nation’s record high of high school graduation rates, dropout rates at 

historic lows, and our largest and most diverse esclass graduating 

from college. 

We all want the story of education in America to be written by 

these and even more wins for our kids. 

ESSA implementation will require an incredible amount of work. 

The department has heard from stakeholders about where guidance or technical assistance is most needed. We sought input on 

areas in need of regulation, received hundreds of comments via our 

notice in the Federal Register, and held public meetings. 

We are still early in the process but there is urgency in the work 

to support States, districts, and educators. The department will engage in negotiated rulemaking on assessments and the law’s requirement that Federal funds be used to supplement not supplant 

local investments in education. 

Sessions will begin in late March, and will be open to the public. 

As we continue to meet with stakeholders and determine regulaCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

9 

tions and guidance requiring updates, we look forward to a robust 

discussion of the new law. 

Education is the path to equality and opportunity that is at the 

heart of the American dream, and together we can assure the 

dream is within reach for every child. 

Thank you. I am glad to take your questions. 

[The statement of Mr. King follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

10 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 1 here 98732.001
11 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 2 here 98732.002
12 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 3 here 98732.003
13 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 4 here 98732.004
14 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 5 here 98732.005
15 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you, Dr. King. It is two days in a row 

you have finished in less than the allotted time. That is probably 

unheard of. We are so very glad to see that. 

I want to take a minute or two here to discuss congressional intent, and I got some notes in front of me because I want to be precise about this. 

It is not so much congressional intent as it is the Department’s 

plans with respect to congressional intent that I want to get at. As 

I stated in my opening remarks, there is a very clear purpose behind the Every Student Succeeds Act. We all know we tried a topdown approach to K–12 education for years and it did not work, 

made matters worse in my opinion. 

This administration spent a lot of time and energy dictating policy through conditional temporary waivers. I cannot tell you how 

many times I had a discussion with Secretary Duncan about the 

nature of those. 

As it turns out, no one believed the status quo was working, and 

so Republicans and Democrats came together, House and Senate 

and administration, to pursue a fundamentally different approach. 

The basic intent behind that new approach is to reduce the Federal 

role and restore State and local control. 

In working with an experienced and nonpartisan legislative 

counsel’s office, we made the language in the law as clear as possible. For example, Section 1111 of the law protects the right of 

States to set their own academic standards. However, because of 

the department’s meddling in Common Core, the law also includes 

Section 8036. This section entitles State control over standards, reaffirms the right of States’ withdrawal from Common Core or revise their standards as they determine necessary without fear of 

Federal interference. 

We understand implementing new law is complicated business, 

and there will be areas with questions and uncertainty, but there 

should never be any question as to what Congress intended when 

it wrote the law. 

Again, the State and Local ESSA Implementation Network recently wrote ‘‘ESSA is clear, education decision-making now rests 

with States and districts and the Federal role is to support and inform those decisions.’’ In fact, I think it is clear that any honest 

observer would reach the same conclusion. 

Yet it appears for some that may not be the case. In an interview 

with POLITICO Pro last December, then Secretary Duncan was 

asked about provisions of the law narrowing the Secretary’s authority, and this is part of the Secretary’s response: 

He said ‘‘And the final thing is we have every ability to implement, to regulate the law. Philosophically, I agree with a bunch of 

the stuff, and candidly, our lawyers are much smarter than many 

of the folks who were working on this bill. There is some face-saving things you give up, some talking points that you give up, which 

we always do because we are focused on substance, and we have 

every ability to implement. That is all I have ever wanted.’’ 

Well, I find those remarks to be troubling and insulting. They 

suggest that even when it is clear to the department what the law 

says and what Congress intended, the department can do whatever 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

16 

it wants to, apparently because the department’s lawyers are better 

than ours. 

Throughout the process to replace No Child Left Behind, one of 

the leading concerns I heard from colleagues and from many of our 

constituents is that this administration cannot be trusted to implement the law, and statements like this from Arne Duncan merely 

reinforce this legitimate concern. 

Dr. King, do you agree with Secretary Duncan’s remarks? 

Mr. KING. Let me first say that I am deeply committed that the 

implementation of the law respects the ability of States and districts to make decisions about education, within the parameters of 

protecting the civil rights of students with the goal of equity and 

excellence for all students. 

I had the opportunity throughout the last year and a half since 

I have been at the department to spend time with staff of the committee and of the Senate Committee and with our team at the department. 

There are smart lawyers all around, very strong, very capable 

staff on all sides who worked on the development of this law, and 

you can trust that we will abide by the letter of the law as we move 

forward to do regulations, provide guidance and technical assistance to States and districts, and our intent is to work together with 

you, and to gather input from educators, from parents, and from 

members of this committee as we move forward. 

Chairman KLINE. Well, I certainly hope that is the case. You are 

here and you are under oath, as we talked about before, and you 

just said that you intend to follow the letter of the law. 

We will, of course, continue our responsibility in providing oversight like this hearing and others here in this body and in the Senate. You are right, there are good lawyers all around, but those 

good lawyers are supposed to get the language right to put the regulations in place that are consistent with the letter and intent of 

the law, not find ways around it, which was the implication of Secretary Duncan’s remarks. 

With that, I will yield back and recognize Mr. Scott for his questions. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. King, shortly you will 

be nominating negotiators for the process of negotiated rulemaking, 

and in that notice, there is a constituency of civil rights listed, 

which includes students with disabilities and English learners. 

In areas of assessment for English language proficiency, alternative assessments for students with the most significant disabilities, do you recognize that those are actually two different concerns and need separate representation on the panel; could we commit that when you talk about civil rights generally, civil rights will 

be represented, but also those with disabilities, and English learners will be separately represented? 

Mr. KING. Thanks. You know, I think one of the key things for 

success of implementation of the law will be gathering broad input 

and feedback, and we have already begun that process with two 

public hearings, gathering public comment through the Federal 

Register, and meetings with a variety of stakeholder groups, including civil rights groups representing concerns of English language learners and students with disabilities. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

17 

I will not personally play a role in the selection of the negotiators 

for negotiated rulemaking, but I am confident that negotiators who 

are chosen will represent a diversity of interests, including educators and civil rights leaders with specific experience with English 

language learners and students with disabilities. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. In response to the chairman’s question 

where we have given much more power to local and State agencies, 

we tell them what needs to be done, but we do not tell them how 

to do it. The ‘‘how to do it’’ is within their purview. 

How do you maintain the requirements? How do you guarantee 

they will actually succeed in getting the job done if we let them decide how they are going to do the assessments? How can we guarantee the assessments will be effective in measuring achievement, 

progress, and achievement gaps? 

Mr. KING. The key, I think one of the keys of the Every Student 

Succeeds Act is the commitment that States and districts will work 

towards expectations for students that will allow them to graduate 

from high school ready for college and career. 

As States build their assessment and accountability systems, 

they should do that work in the spirit of ensuring that all students 

graduate ready. They have to make sure that as they do that, they 

are attentive to issues of equity. 

One of the strengths of the law is preserving the disaggregation 

of data that was required by No Child Left Behind, so that we 

know where there are achievement gaps facing African American 

students, Latino students, English language learners, low-income 

students, and students with disabilities. 

And importantly the law requires not just that there be information about those gaps, but thanks to the leadership of folks on this 

committee, it requires that States take action when there are 

achievement gaps, when schools have chronically low graduation 

rates, and when schools are among the lowest performing in the 

State. 

We will take comment from States, districts, and other stakeholders to define regulations, guidance, and technical assistance to 

support States in that work, but we believe the law is clear that 

States have a responsibility to work to close achievement gaps. 

Mr. SCOTT. We do not tell them how to do it, that is local control. 

If they are not doing it, how do you guarantee they actually get the 

job done? Can you do that? 

Mr. KING. Importantly, the law preserves the role of the Federal 

Government in ensuing that States fulfill their responsibilities 

under the law. Certainly, States will develop plans for their implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act. Those plans will 

need to explain how they will intervene when schools are struggling or when subgroups are struggling. 

They will then have to produce evidence of their work to implement those plans, evidence of student performance, and to demonstrate that where progress is not made, the interventions are intensified. Again, their choice of the approach of interventions, although clearly there should be evidence-based interventions, and 

the department will take very seriously the responsibility of ensuring that States do what the law requires. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

18 

Mr. SCOTT. I think it is important to note that No Child Left Behind had a cookie cutter response that sometimes worked and 

sometimes did not. We have let the States and local governments 

decide what needs to be done now, but we need to make sure that 

the job gets done. That is where the department comes in, and we 

are counting on you to fulfill that responsibility. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Thompson? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Chairman. Chairman, thanks for 

this opportunity. This is the first of what I think will probably be 

many opportunities for oversight on what was a good bill, a good 

law. 

Dr. King, thank you again for coming in today. Oversight is so 

important. Just in the past couple of weeks I hosted my own educational forum, had a room full of educators, administrators, and 

parents, you know, getting their feedback, and encouraging them 

to give me feedback as this is being implemented, so that we can 

listen to those who this impacts most, which is our children. I look 

forward to continue to do a series of those around my district. 

I want to check in on testing with you. During the era of No 

Child Left Behind, the Federal Government primarily measured 

school performance on student test scores. The schools with students who underperformed were thrown into the onerous one-sizefits-all school improvement system. 

As the future of many schools began to hinge on the standardized 

test scores, pressure grew to pile on more tests to prepare for the 

big annual test with practice tests and taught to the test. 

Under the flawed law, high-stakes testing created an environment of anxiety and teaching to the test became the norm. This administration made this dynamic worse by using its temporary and 

conditional waiver scheme to require States to tie teacher evaluations to results on those same assessments. 

We know that assessments can play a positive role in identifying 

areas that need improvement, both in a school and in a child’s personal education. However, the high-stakes testing created under No 

Child Left Behind and the department’s waiver scheme left no 

room for State and local leaders to make those improvements and 

cultivate environments conducive to learning, which is what our 

schools should be all about. 

The Every Student Succeeds Act does away with the federally 

mandated high-stakes testing. Under the law, students will be assessed in the subjects of reading, math, and science. However, 

States, not the Federal Government, will determine how much 

those testing outcomes will weigh in a school’s performance evaluation. 

The Every Student Succeeds Act also prohibits the department 

from imposing teacher evaluation systems on States and school districts. 

With these changes, the law returns responsibility for accountability, school improvement, and teacher evaluation back to where 

it belongs, at the State and local levels. 

Nat Malkus, an education fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, recently described the Every Student Succeeds Act as a 

‘‘Significant sign of a course correction when it comes to mandatory 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

19 

testing,’’ saying these provisions can help schools focus on important aspects of schooling that are not reflected on standardized 

tests. 

With these comments, it is clear Congress has taken a step in 

the right direction. The ESSA also respects the right of States to 

pass laws that would allow parents to opt their children out of assessments. The Federal Government should not get in the way of 

States and local leaders as they carefully consider the concerns 

that parents have voiced when it comes to testing. 

The specific language addressing States’ rights can be found in 

Section 1111 that reads ‘‘Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as preempting a State or local law regarding the decision of 

a parent to not have the parent’s child participate in the academic 

assessments under this paragraph.’’ 

In addition, the ESSA makes an important change to the assessment participation rate as it pertains to schools. In the No Child 

Left Behind Act, schools that failed to assess at least 95 percent 

of its students were automatically deemed failing. Under the new 

law, however, States have the sole responsibility of determining 

how the 95 percent participation rate factors into a school’s evaluation. 

ESSA very clearly gives power back to the States when it comes 

to holding schools accountable for assessment participation, and 

the right of parents to opt their children out of those assessments. 

These provisions will allow States and school districts to better 

identify and support underperforming schools and provide more 

transparency and options for parents and their students. 

Dr. King, how would you ensure—how will you ensure that the 

implementation of ESSA protects the authority of States to make 

these decisions without Federal interference? 

Mr. KING. Thanks for the question. One of the things that I think 

is an important step forward of the Every Student Succeeds Act is 

as you said, the opportunity to broaden the definition of ‘‘educational excellence.’’ We have done the No Child Left Behind as a 

teacher, as a principal, as a leader of schools, and as a State chief, 

and understand that one of the weaknesses of No Child Left Behind was a narrowing of how we think about educational excellence. 

I think the flexibility that States have to design their accountability systems gives them room to ask how are students doing in 

science and social studies, are students getting access to art and 

music, are students getting access to advanced course work, and 

are schools helping students develop socioemotional skills? 

Are schools helping prepare students to participate in civic discourse? Are schools paying attention when kids are chronically absent and intervening to make sure that kids are in school, so we 

can ensure that they stay in school through high school graduation? 

I think there is tremendous opportunity here. Our role at the department will be to create helpful parameters and to provide technical assistance. I think as you will hear from State chiefs who are 

part of the oversight process, that State chiefs are eager to have 

this flexibility and to work with their stakeholders to broaden the 

definition of ‘‘educational excellence.’’ 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

20 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Hinojosa? 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Dr. King, thank you for joining us today to testify 

before this committee on the implementation of the Every Student 

Succeeds Act, known as ESSA. Thank you, Chairman Kline and 

Ranking Member Scott for holding this important hearing. 

Let me begin by saying it seems to me that this hearing is just 

another attempt to erode executive authority at the U.S. Department of Education. I have been here 20 years and I have seen that 

we have made some improvement. I do not want to go back to what 

it was like back during the administration of Lyndon Baines Johnson when he introduced legislation known as the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act and the Higher Education Act, because it 

was necessary that the Federal Government participate in trying 

to make education for all better. 

I am concerned my colleagues want to use this hearing to explain 

why we should return to full local control. Instead, we must use 

this committee hearing as an opportunity to hear about the vitally 

important Federal role in education. 

To be clear, I strongly believe the Federal Government is responsible for providing educational equity and strong guardrails to protect the civil rights of all students. 

This includes ensuring that economically disadvantaged students, students of color, English language learners, migrant students, students with disabilities, and other special populations 

have access to a high quality education, and to succeed and graduate from high school ready to go to college. 

President Obama signed the Every Student Succeeds Act on December 10, 2015 and has provided us with a clear picture of your 

commitment to implementing that law. This includes promulgating 

the regulations that serve to interpret and clarify statutory requirements. 

While ESSA contains limited prohibitions on the Secretary’s authority to regulate in particular areas, the law leaves substantial 

authority for the Department of Education to regulate in broad parameters and define vague statutory terms. 

Under ESSA, States and school districts are tasked with increased responsibility. It seems to me they will need additional 

support and oversight from the department in order to fulfill the 

requirements of this new law. 

I would like to ask you a question, Dr. King. In Texas, students 

of color already comprise the majority of the public school students. 

Can you explain the long-standing importance of the Federal role 

in protecting the right to educational opportunity for all students, 

and how does the department’s plan balance that role with the new 

flexibilities afforded to the States by Congress under ESSA? 

Mr. KING. I appreciate that question. I think the measure of the 

success of our implementation of this law will be whether or not 

it advances both equity and excellence. Too often, we know in our 

Nation’s history, the interests and needs of low-income students 

have been under attended to. There are too many cases in our history where the interest of English language learners have been ignored, too many cases in our history where African American stuCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

21 

dents and Latino students have not had access to the same opportunities. 

We have to view this law as an opportunity to advance equity, 

and I think State chiefs are eager to do that. I know Tony Evers, 

the president of the Board of the Chief State School Officers, this 

year has committed to make this the year of equity for the Council 

of Chief State School Officers. 

Our role at the department will be to set parameters, guardrails 

that ensure that attention is paid to the students who are most at 

risk. We know there are States that have had a history of underattending to English learners, for example. 

We will ensure that the regulations and guidance that we provide requires attention to the needs of English learners, and I 

think there are some new tools in the Every Student Succeeds Act 

that will be helpful. One of those new tools is the focus on schools 

with graduation rates below 67 percent. We know often those are 

schools serving low-income students. 

Another one of those tools is the disaggregation of data on 

English learners who are also students with disabilities, a population whose needs, I think, have been underattended to as a country. 

We see the civil rights legacy of the law as a central task for the 

department. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. I am an optimist. I think we are going to go forward because we signed—the President signed a bill which was 

very bipartisan under the direction of Chairman Kline and Bobby 

Scott, so I think we just need to work like that as we try to reauthorize higher education, and we will work with you very closely. 

I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Guthrie, you 

are recognized. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I get to my 

question, I want to say I know Secretary Duncan, and when those 

words first came out, I thought maybe they had been taken out of 

context, and they were not, and I was real disappointed. 

I will tell you, those sitting behind Chairman Kline that I know 

and those sitting behind Ranking Member Scott, who I do not know 

as well, but I think I can say without fear of contradiction, are extremely smart, successful, talented, and they could do a lot of other 

things in life but they are here because they really believe in this 

process and what is moving forward. I am saying all along the 

wall, like behind Mr. Polis. 

The other thing is you wonder if he is just saying well, let’s get 

something done and we can do what we want to do because we can 

figure out how to work the law to get around and still do what we 

want to do. 

I want to be clear on congressional intent. I am going to stick to 

my notes here because I want to be precise. To get to my question, 

the Every Student Succeeds Act is a positive step forward in K– 

12 education. The new law repeals burdensome Federal requirements and ensures decisions affecting education are made by State 

and local leaders, not Washington bureaucrats. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

22 

We appreciate the work the Department has done in issuing initial guidance as States begin the process of transitioning to the 

new law. It has done a good job. We appreciate it. 

States and local leaders have expressed to us they are willing 

and eager to make this transition, so moving forward, we want to 

make sure they have everything they need to do so. 

As the Department of Education issues guidance, we want to emphasize that it should be consistent with the letter of the law and 

Congress’ intent to give more control of K–12 education back to 

State and local leaders. 

Just a few weeks ago, this committee was able to hear testimony 

from Oklahoma State’s superintendent, Joy Hofmeister. She echoed 

this point when she said, and I quote, ‘‘State and local education 

agencies working closely with educators and administrators are in 

the best position to make decisions about the policies and practices 

that will benefit every child, especially those most in need. Striking 

the balance between guidance to the States and ensuring that 

States are not overly prescribed is what State leaders need.’’ 

We in Congress want to be sure the Department understands the 

intent of the law as we go through the guidance and regulatory 

process. 

As you know, the new law includes several provisions to guide 

States as they transition from No Child Left Behind to the Every 

Student Succeeds Act. When it comes to accountability systems, 

which gets to my question, States will continue operating under 

their current systems for the remainder of the 2015 to 2016 school 

year, but those accountability systems will be suspended after that 

school year. Through the end of the 2016–2017 school year, States 

will continue to implement the school interventions they had 

planned before the Every Student Succeeds Act became law. 

New accountability systems and school intervention policies developed and adopted by State and local leaders will go into effect 

at the beginning of the 2017–2018 school year. 

My question is with this framework in place, Dr. King, how will 

you ensure that States have the information and flexibility they 

need to adjust to the new law in the coming years? 

Mr. KING. A guiding principle for us in this process would be to 

gather input from stakeholders and have stakeholders input. 

School districts, superintendents, principals, State education agencies, parents, civil rights community, and community leaders, have 

their input guide our process of developing regulations, guidance, 

and technical assistance. 

We have already started that process. The ‘‘Dear Colleague’’ letters, the three that we have done so far with States have been intended to address questions that we have been getting from States 

and to help them think through the transition. 

We want to continue in that way to try to be responsive to the 

needs of States and districts. We are beginning the negotiated rulemaking process on assessments and accountability plans, because 

those were areas that we saw in the comments we have received 

that needed additional clarity, and that is the approach that we 

will take to all the other areas. 

I am confident that we can work together with States to support 

them. I think State chiefs are eager for the flexibility, and many 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

23 

of them have already begun extensive stakeholder engagement as 

they think through their accountability plans and their new systems that they will implement under ESSA. I am confident that by 

the summer of 2017, as we move into the 2017–2018 school year, 

States will be well positioned to move forward on their new plans. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you. As I mentioned the previous Secretary, 

I also will say your willingness to come here 2 days in a row for 

two separate meetings to work through these issues shows your respect for this process, and it is much appreciated. I yield back my 

time. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Fudge? 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

again, Dr. King, for being here. Let me just be clear before we 

start. I heard reference twice to a comment by former Secretary 

Duncan, and that maybe some of my colleagues are insulted or aggrieved in some way about what he said. Did you write that or did 

you say that? 

Mr. KING. No. 

Ms. FUDGE. Okay. Just to be clear. We should not hold you responsible for something somebody else said. 

First question, Dr. King, an underlying focus on equity has remained in each reauthorization of the ESSA. As a sponsor of the 

core act, I have advocated for an accountability model that forces 

districts to review the equitable allocation of resources across 

schools. This includes human resources such as counselors, nurses, 

and other support personnel. 

What type of guidance will you be able to provide to ensure that 

as districts look at resource equity, they do so in a comprehensive 

manner? 

Mr. KING. The issue of resource equity, I think, is central to the 

way States and districts can use the Every Student Succeeds Act 

to advance opportunity for students who too often have not had 

those opportunities. There are a couple of key potential levers. One 

is as States develop their accountability systems, they will have the 

opportunity to incorporate issues of equitable access to opportunity. 

We know, for example, there are many high schools in this country where you cannot take chemistry and physics. If you cannot 

take chemistry and physics, you are unlikely to be prepared for 

success in STEM careers. 

We have many high schools, sometimes high needs urban, sometimes high needs rural, that do not offer advanced placement 

courses or international baccalaureate courses, so students cannot 

get that head start on college level work. 

States could incorporate those elements into their accountability 

systems, and we will certainly support States in doing that. 

The law also requires transparent reporting on issues of resource 

equity, access to advanced course work, and we want to make sure 

that as States move forward with implementation they are attentive to those issues of inequitable access to opportunity, and as 

they intervene in schools that are underperforming, one of the 

things they will need to do is use evidence-based interventions to 

respond to that inequitable opportunity. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you. Dr. King, we hear a lot of talk, especially 

from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, about regulation 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

24 

of being by definition Federal overreach. It seems to me that promulgating regulations, issuing guidance, and providing ongoing 

technical assistance are crucial tools used by the department that 

helps States and districts implement the law without confusion 

about what it requires. 

Can you just talk a little bit about that? 

Mr. KING. Yes. The regulatory process and the guidance process 

we see as an opportunity to be responsive to States, districts, and 

stakeholders. As we get questions, we try to respond to those. 

In the ‘‘Dear Colleague’’ letters that we have done so far, we have 

gotten questions about how States should think about the fact that 

many of the programs that were appropriated in the 2016 budget 

were done so under existing structures, not new law, so what does 

that mean for them. 

We have gotten questions around States’ obligation to provide 

supplemental education services and make clear that they can substitute alternative interventions given the new flexibilities under 

ESSA. 

We have tried to be responsive and our intention is to continue 

to try to be responsive. Regulations often are critical to providing 

clarity on issues that are not clearly specified in the law, and guidance we see as an opportunity both to provide clarity and to offer 

examples of best practice. 

Ms. FUDGE. It certainly is not your intent to try to run local 

schools? 

Mr. KING. Absolutely not. I think we know the best ideas are 

going to come from classrooms, schools, districts, and States. We 

have to make sure that as those ideas are implemented it is done 

in a way that is attentive to issues of equity. I think that is our 

core responsibility. 

Ms. FUDGE. You intend to proceed as the law has said, you are 

going to assist, you are not going to try to dictate to States what 

they should do. You are going to provide guidance, and that is 

clearly within the law. 

Mr. KING. Exactly right. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you so much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Bryne? 

Mr. BRYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Dr. King. You and I met 

previously. I was a former chancellor of Postsecondary Education 

for the State of Alabama. Previous to that, I was in the legislature 

and served on the Education Policy Committee, the Education 

Budget Committee, and prior to that, I spent 8 years in the Alabama State School Board. 

I and my colleagues in a bipartisan fashion on the school board 

worked very hard to be the accountability body for the State of Alabama. So, I personally feel very strongly about that. 

Now, when No Child Left Behind came along in 2001, it tried to 

put a one-size-fits-all mentality on school systems around the Nation. Once again, in a bipartisan fashion, we realized that did not 

work, and so this committee and this Congress in a bipartisan 

fashion decided to move back from that. 

The law we passed last year, the Every Student Succeeds Act, is 

very clear, it is very explicit about getting away from the one-sizefits-all mentality. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

25 

We have had some testimony recently before this committee, as 

was referenced earlier from the Oklahoma State superintendent of 

education that sort of gives us a good example of what States 

around the United States are intending to do to make sure they 

take their role in accountability very seriously. 

Far from getting away from accountability, we believe in the law 

that we actually put accountability where it would have the greatest impact, and that is with State and local education leaders. 

In some cases, those are State school board members or local 

school board members, and in some cases, it is State superintendents of education, local superintendents of education. People you 

know very well, and you know very well from your experience that 

these people are closer to where the schools are, closer to where the 

students are, and also have a pretty good handle on what needs to 

be done to make sure that education is getting through to every 

child. We want every child to be successful. 

Now, to protect this State and local authority over their accountability systems, the Every Student Succeeds Act included a number 

of protections to ensure the law would be implemented correctly. 

For example, the law asks States to evaluate schools based on 

consistent underperformance of any subgroup of students with consistent underperformance being ‘‘determined by the State.’’ The law 

also prohibits you or any other secretary from regulating what 

‘‘consistently underperforming’’ means. 

Now, I know you did not give the quote we heard earlier from 

your predecessor about the smart lawyers, but the concern is there 

may be some smart lawyers in the Department of Education that 

want to find a way to get around the explicit words in this statute. 

We have seen that with other departments of government. 

So, I want to ask you to do today in your words, not your predecessor’s words, in your words, I want you to assure us that the Department of Education will respect the role of State and local leaders by following the clear restrictions of the Every Student Succeeds Act that it places on the Federal Government when it comes 

to accountability, and in particular, in your remarks, I want you 

to tell us what you will do to ensure that States retain the sole 

right explicitly given to them in the statute to determine the meaning of ‘‘consistently underperforming.’’ 

Mr. KING. Yes, for us, I think again, careful attention to the 

input that we get from States and districts will drive our work on 

regulations and guidance. 

Joy is a great example. I think Joy shared with the committee 

noting that Oklahoma’s approach to accountability under the waiver had subgroups together, and she actually thought the Every Student Succeeds Act requirement to look at each individual subgroup 

would allow her to make an important step forward for equity and 

excellence in her State. 

Mr. BRYNE. Mr. Secretary, what I want to hear is are you going 

to not let your lawyers get you to do something that abates the 

law, will you enforce this law as it is written and given the clear 

intent of the Congress? 

Mr. KING. We will certainly ensure that our regulations and 

guidance are consistent with the letter of the law. We are committed to that. We are also committed to trying to work with States 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

26 

and districts to ensure their approach is consistent with the letter 

of the law. 

Again, I think we have an opportunity— 

Mr. BRYNE. Will you respect that the States have the sole responsibility to determine what this phrase ‘‘consistently underperforming’’ means? Will you be sure that the States have that authority as is explicitly given to them in the statute? 

Mr. KING. We are early in the process on gathering comments— 

Mr. BRYNE. That is a yes or no question. Will you do that? 

Mr. KING. Respectfully, I am not sure that it is because as States 

think about this work of implementing the Every Student Succeeds 

Act, we are getting questions from States, from districts, and from 

other stakeholders about how they move forward with some of the 

definitions in the law, and we will work with States on that. 

So, I am committed to working with this committee, committed 

to ensuring that our implementation is consistent with the letter 

of the law, and interested in your feedback, but I do not want to 

get ahead of the negotiating rule makers. I do not want to get 

ahead of the review of comments that we are getting from States 

and districts. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Polis? 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you, Mr. Acting Secretary, for being here 

today. It really was an enormous achievement for this committee 

and Congress along with you and the executive branch to participate in the reauthorization of ESSA last fall. 

As you know, members of this committee and our staff put countless hours in the creation of the Every Student Succeeds Act, and 

it is important to all our constituents that it is implemented effectively, which is why you are here today. 

Of course, I want to underscore the role of the department in the 

process of implementation. As legislators, we make laws, and the 

department as part of the executive branch, you have the responsibility to implement them. 

I want to talk briefly about accountability. ESSA repealed the 

flawed one-size-fits-all accountability system of No Child Left Behind, finally, and places responsibility for making decisions around 

accountability to the States. 

While we all agree that ESSA’s accountability requirements are 

an improvement over NCLB, we also know that States have a historically checkered record of making sure that all vulnerable populations are served. 

As we heard recently from the State chief of schools in Oklahoma, some States use their waiver authority to develop accountability systems that hid the achievement in graduation rates of 

subgroups of students. 

It is very important in implementing the new law that the department ensures that the Federal guardrails in ESSA are meaningful and prevent those kinds of State systems from turning back 

the clock on educational opportunity for all students. That is referenced specifically in the statute, of course, around the area of opt 

outs, in response to Mr. Thompson’s comments 

While a State is welcome to pass bad laws relating to opt outs, 

we have Section C.4(e) of ESSA that says States must assess 95 

percent of students. That means ‘‘all’’ means ‘‘all,’’ and while it is 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

27 

up to States to determine the consequences for failing to assess students, it is the department that will provide oversight and enforcement to ensure States are assessing all students regardless of the 

State laws are on how opt outs occur. 

At the end of the day, ESSA and ESEA are civil rights’ laws. I 

believe it should be implemented in a way that maintains that 

spirit. 

What steps do you plan to take to make sure that ‘‘all’’ means 

‘‘all,’’ and that States do not deliberately or accidentally hide 

achievement gaps or subgroup performance? 

Mr. KING. I appreciate the question. I take that responsibility 

quite seriously to ensure that ‘‘all’’ means ‘‘all’’ and that this implementation of the law advances equity and excellence. 

I think we have an opportunity in the regulations and guidance 

that we provide to help create guardrails that will ensure that 

States use their new flexibility around accountability and interventions to advance equity. 

For example, as we begin the negotiated rulemaking process 

around assessments, the kinds of questions we have been getting 

have been questions around the participation of students with disabilities, the participation of English learners, the implementation 

of computer adaptive assessment, in a way that protects equity. 

So, as we move forward with that negotiated rulemaking, a central question will be how do we ensure that regulations that we do 

on assessments protect civil rights of students. We will take a similar approach to our work on the negotiated rulemaking for supplement not supplant, and we continue to review comment and feedback from stakeholders to define other areas where we need to 

move forward with regs and guidance. 

Mr. POLIS. And while the consequences of meeting the requirements are left up to State law, do you feel that you have sufficient 

levers to ensure those consequences are meaningful and not meaningless? 

Mr. KING. We do. I will say it will require vigilance on the part 

of the department, particularly as States implement their first 

round of interventions and identify whether or not those interventions are helping to achieve progress, particularly for at-risk subgroups. We are going to have to be vigilant to ensure that States 

continue to move forward to shift strategy if a strategy is not working for the highest needs students. 

Mr. POLIS. Thanks. You know, over testing is a major issue we 

hear about from students, teachers, and school boards. I am very 

pleased that ESSA allows ACT and SAT to meet the Federal high 

school testing requirements. District and State leaders in Colorado 

also support that change. 

We have a lot of questions about implementation. What can I tell 

my constituents about how this new policy will be implemented? 

Mr. KING. This is one of the areas also that will be tackled by 

the negotiated rulemaking process on assessments. It is one that 

we have gotten a lot of questions on, the nationally recognized high 

school assessments. There are a number of questions that will be 

posed to the negotiators, and we will gather—we will use the public 

comment we have already received on this subject to inform that 

process. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

28 

Mr. POLIS. In my last 10 seconds I just want to point out that 

there is a lot of interest in student data privacy, and along with 

Mr. Messer, we look forward to continuing to work with the department to ensure that as we take advantage of new blended learning 

and educational technology opportunities that the privacy of students is respected as well and in an appropriate way. I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Curbelo? 

Mr. CURBELO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here with us today. As we were working towards 

this reauthorization, I collaborated with Chairman Kline, Chairman Rokita, and my colleague from Florida, Ms. Wilson, to see how 

we could support English language learners through this legislation. 

Under No Child Left Behind, there were very rigid, unfair, in my 

opinion, standards used to evaluate English language learners. As 

you know, I represent Miami, Dade County, South Florida, where 

we have a large ELL population. A lot of these kids were being 

counted out after one year. Their teachers and their schools were 

being punished. 

One of our priorities was to bring some relief not just to these 

students, we want to continue counting them without counting 

them out, but also to the teachers who spent hours and hours with 

these kids, and to the schools who dedicate so many resources to 

support them. 

Can you talk to me a little bit about how the department is interpreting our language with regards to English language learners, 

and if relief is coming to these State school districts and schools 

soon? 

Mr. KING. This is an extremely important area. I think in many 

ways the fate of our education system is bound up with how we 

serve our highest needs students, and we have a rapidly growing 

population of English learners across the country, and we have to 

do a better job as a country ensuring that English learners have 

the opportunity to get the academic skills that they need and also 

the opportunity to get the language skills that they need. 

As we go forward with implementation, we are gathering feedback and input from the community of educators who have focused 

on English learners, as well as organizations who have advocated 

for English learner students. Their input will help to drive what 

goes into the regulations and guidance. 

As we go into the negotiated rulemaking process on assessments, 

one of the key issues will be the participation of English learners 

in the assessment system. We look forward to the negotiators tackling that issue. 

We think there are some great opportunities in the Every Student Succeeds Act. Very quickly, the opportunity to focus on 

growth. One of the weaknesses, I think, of No Child Left Behind 

was the focus exclusively on proficiency. 

We have the opportunity with ESSA implementation for States 

to look at the growth of English learners as part of their accountability system. We have the requirement for States to look at 

English language proficiency as part of their systems of accountability. We have the requirement for States to focus on the needs 

of English learners who are also students with disabilities, a popuCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

29 

lation that has often been underattended to. We have the opportunity to focus attention on long-term ELLs, students who have 

been in the schools for a long time but still have not acquired the 

language skills they need. 

I think the law will help focus attention here. We already have 

begun working with States on providing technical assistance in this 

area as they think about how to integrate growth into their accountability systems, and certainly look forward to working with 

you on this issue. 

Mr. CURBELO. So, you can assure me today that as a result of 

our reauthorization, you foresee in the immediate future more 

flexibility, more latitude for schools, teachers, and districts to work 

with this unique population? 

Mr. KING. Yes, I think States will have good flexibility and an 

opportunity to focus on the needs of English learners more intensively than some States have in the past. 

Mr. CURBELO. And can you tell me briefly, since we have a little 

over a minute left, regarding the implementation of the Direct Student Services program, which promises to expand school choice and 

again bring more flexibility and options for students who have the 

capacity to excel and to achieve more, but who are limited by the 

schools they are attending? 

Mr. KING. Yes, from our perspective, we have long thought that 

school innovation and choice can be powerful levers to drive better 

opportunities for equity and excellence. We do not support voucher 

programs. 

I think that is an area in which I know there is some disagreement, even in this room, but we certainly will implement the law 

with respect to the D.C. program, and we will certainly implement 

the opportunities for students in charters that are part of the law, 

and the opportunity for school districts to design other versions of 

Public School Choice programs. 

Mr. CURBELO. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman yields back. Staying with Florida, Ms. Wilson, you are recognized. 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I welcome you once again, 

Dr. King. I know this is an extremely busy week for you, especially 

today. I appreciate your continued enthusiasm for these issues. I 

also look forward to your successful confirmation hearing later 

today. 

Mr. KING. Thanks. 

Ms. WILSON. We know that the Federal role is crucial for protecting the interests of all students. Do you agree? Can you talk 

more about the long-standing importance of the Federal role in protecting the right to educational opportunities for all students? 

How might these resources in Title IV be used to support the 

59,260 students attending dropout factory high schools in Florida, 

where one-third of students fail to graduate? 

Mr. KING. When you think back to 1965 when Lyndon Johnson 

signed the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act, it 

was with the intention that education would be a driver of equality, 

of opportunity in American society. I think as we move forward 

with implementation of ESSA, it has to be done in the same spirit 

as that legacy. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

30 

Title IV creates a number of opportunities. States and districts 

will be able to use resources there for programs that are targeted 

at dropout prevention, at issues of school climate, which we know 

are often drivers of students leaving school. States will be able to 

use Title IV to ensure they are integrating the arts, which can be 

a powerful lever for student engagement. 

States will be able to use those Title IV dollars to support initiatives to provide advanced course work. We know that getting students access to advanced courses in areas of interest can be a driver, not only of students staying in school and completing high 

school, but students going on to success in college and careers 

afterwards. 

I think there is tremendous opportunity there. One of the challenges will be for highest needs communities. We continue to see 

in too many places that States are underfunding highest needs 

schools. Even as the Federal resources create new opportunities, 

we do worry that we will need a strong partnership from States to 

invest in the highest needs schools. 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you. Just a follow-up to Representative 

Curbelo. We are saying that States should reduce testing, and in 

some way, I do not know what the communication is, but it is not 

the district that has the authority to reduce the testing, it is the 

State that has the authority. Am I correct? 

In Florida, the State legislature has decided against all that we 

tried to put forth for English learners, and also to reduce the pipeline to prison because of the extreme emphasis on testing. So, I call 

them ‘‘testing factories’’ in Florida. 

How do we go around a State to stop all of this testing, even 

though our Federal bill says they should? 

Mr. KING. You know, in the fall, the President announced our 

testing action plan with a concern that a combination of State and 

district decisions, and I think there is some great variation across 

the country, had resulted in some places in too many assessments. 

The question is you want good information for teachers and parents each year about how students are progressing, but you do not 

want assessments to crowd out good instruction, as you know from 

your experiences as an educator. 

So, we recently issued guidance to States and districts on how 

they might use existing Federal dollars to audit the assessments 

they give, evaluate which ones are useful and creating opportunity, 

and which ones are unnecessary, redundant, or of low quality and 

should be replaced. 

We are seeing, I think, progress across States around this, a 

number of chiefs and our State chief school officers are focused on 

trying to both reduce the number of assessments and improve their 

quality. 

When I was State chief in New York, we had a grant program 

that focused on helping teachers and principals come together to 

look at their assessments and ask are these really the right ones, 

do we really need these, and can they be better, can we make them 

more performance-based, can we make them more project-based, 

can we make the assessment a more logical part of the instructional experience that students are having by embedding it in the 

instruction. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

31 

Ms. WILSON. We have to make sure that the department plans 

to honor our congressional intent in ESSA around the 95 percent 

participation rate on assessments. I am sure we have your commitment to help us. 

The testing is killing them, especially in Florida. I am just speaking of Florida. I do not know about the other States. 

Mr. KING. I think we have to get the balance right around assessment, and I think it is clear that in the last decade, as you look 

across the country, the balance has not always been right. I think 

we have an opportunity. On the President’s budget, we proposed an additional $25 million 

for the assessment funding that would be targeted to work like audits on assessments, so that States like Florida and others could 

evaluate the number of assessments they are giving and their quality. 

Again, we want to make sure that parents and teachers have 

good information for every child about how they are progressing 

each year, but we have to do that in a way that is balanced and 

ensures teachers and students are spending their time on instruction and the rich learning experiences that are going to produce 

better outcomes. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentlelady’s time has expired. Mr. 

Barletta? 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Dr. 

King, for being here today. I am looking forward to working with 

you and your department as we implement the Every Student Succeeds Act. 

As you know, the Every Student Succeeds Act reauthorizes the 

21st Century Community Learning Centers program as a separate 

and directed Federal funding stream under Title IV. The original 

House version of the bill eliminated this important program, but as 

a strong supporter, I worked to ensure that funding was restored 

in the final conference report that was signed into law. 

The 21st Century Community Learning Centers program is designed to provide Federal funding for the establishment of community learning centers that provide academic, artistic, and cultural 

enrichment opportunities for children. Funds are directed to students who attend high poverty and low-performing schools to provide them with additional services that help both students and 

their families grow both academically and socially. 

Importantly to me, this program is the only Federal funding 

source for our Nation’s After School programs, which students and 

working families across America rely on each and every day. In my 

district in Pennsylvania, the program provides 49 percent of total 

funding for SHINE, or Schools and Homes in Education, a successful after school educational program in Carbon and now in Luzerne 

Counties. 

I have worked on SHINE for many years back home with my 

friend, State Senator John Yudichak, a Democrat, because helping 

our kids to succeed should always be a bipartisan cause. 

Today, SHINE provides academic support for nearly 500 students from seven school districts. After school programs like 

SHINE are known to improve academic achievement, increase 

school attendance, and engage families in education. They also 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

32 

keep our kids safe resulting in lower incidences of drug use and violence. 

Where I am from in Pennsylvania, this is extremely important. 

Gangs have become a big and persistent problem in some of our 

neighborhoods. As a father and a grandfather, I know how important these programs are to working parents who want to be sure 

their kids have a safe place to go after school, not to mention a 

place that will provide them with the tools they need to lead successful lives. 

SHINE and countless other after school programs have touched 

so many families, giving kids education opportunities that they otherwise would not have had. 

Last month, I was thrilled to hear that the SHINE program in 

Carbon and Schuylkill Counties was awarded a major Federal 

grant, meaning more students in my part of Pennsylvania will 

have the opportunity to participate in this program. Right now, we 

are currently in the process of expanding SHINE to my home town 

in Hazelton, Pennsylvania. 

Just last week, I was out at the Wilkes-Barre Area Career and 

Technical Center where I made a marshmallow pizza with kids in 

5th through 8th grade, who are participating in the SHINE program. Now, these kids were not just honing their culinary skills, 

they were working on a much larger project, designing a restaurant 

using computer software and figuring out how to run it to make a 

profit. 

Given the bipartisan agreement around the 21st Century Community Learning Center language in the Every Student Succeeds 

Act, and the demonstrated success of programs such as SHINE, I 

strongly encourage the department to follow the letter of the law 

as we put this program into place. 

Dr. King, do you anticipate any variance from the law when it 

comes to implementation of the 21st Century Community Learning 

Center program, and can you commit that the administration will 

work to support programs such as SHINE? 

Mr. KING. I certainly am a strong believer in the power of after 

school programs, having experience as a middle school principal, 

that for some kids after school is the time when they would be 

most at risk if they did not have an opportunity to be in a meaningful, engaging program at school or in a community-based organization. 

The same is true sadly for many kids for weekends, school vacations, summers, those are the times when kids are without activities and most at risk. 

The 21st Century programs are very important, I think, to try 

to meet that need, and we also have many of our Promised Neighborhoods’ grantees engaged in after school and summer activities. 

Many of the Education Innovation and Research grantees are engaged in similar activities and building an evidence base around 

the kinds of program designs that serve students well. 

We will certainly implement consistent with the law the 21st 

Century program, and think those kinds of investments in after 

school, whether it is through Promised Neighborhoods, or Education Innovation and Research, or 21st Century, and the flexibility 

that States and districts will have with Title IV dollars as well, 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

33 

those kinds of investments in enriching learning time, enrichment 

time, arts programs, sports programs, can make a huge difference 

in kids’ lives. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. Ms. 

Bonamici? 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome back, Dr. 

King, great to have you back. I am glad my colleague, Mr. Barletta, 

mentioned the importance of extended learning opportunities. I 

wish he would have told us how the marshmallow pizza tasted. 

I am glad this committee is continuing its work to make sure 

that the implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act delivers on the goal of Congress in providing State and local education 

agencies with the flexibility and the resources that they need to 

meet those unique needs of their communities, while also advancing equitable opportunities and outcomes for America’s students, 

especially those who have been historically underserved. 

It bears repeating that the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act is really a civil rights law. Its core purpose is to help level the 

playing field and provide those resources and opportunities where 

they are lacking, and require action to help close the gaps. The rigidity of No Child Left Behind—I appreciate the chairman’s comments and his list of problems that we are well aware—in many 

ways worked against this purpose. 

I am confident that the Every Student Succeeds Act will uphold 

the civil rights legacy of the original ESEA and be responsive to 

the needs of students in each community. 

I want to thank you, Dr. King, for mentioning the power of the 

arts to engage students. I have two nationally recognized STEAM 

schools in the district I am honored to represent. If you want to see 

engaged students, visit a STEAM school. 

I want to follow up a little bit on Representative Wilson’s questions. One of the most frequently criticized pieces of No Child Left 

Behind that I have heard about over the years is the high-stakes 

testing. Fortunately, ESSA takes a number of steps to reduce the 

punitive measures. 

We know teachers need to assess students. We need to start looking at assessments as a positive tool to help inform instruction. The 

department’s testing plan is aligned with the bipartisan legislation 

I sponsored to lead to the provisions in ESSA to reduce the duplicative and low quality assessments. I am pleased the President’s 

budget prioritizes funding for auditing those assessment systems. 

So, can you briefly follow up a little bit on Representative Wilson’s question as well, and talk about how the funding from these 

State assessment grants can be used to develop streamlined assessment systems that support teaching and learning? 

Mr. KING. You know, we have seen good progress on this across 

States. One of the things that States have begun to do is to ask 

if students are in 8th grade and they are taking an advanced math 

class, they are taking an algebra class, do they really need to also 

take the 8th grade math exam as well as the algebra exam. We 

have worked with States so that students are only taking the one 

exam. It has been an opportunity to reduce assessments. 

We know that there are States that have gathered educators together across the State to look at both the State assessments and 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

34 

the local assessments. I think one of the challenges, and you know 

as well, is that districts responding to the narrow accountability 

system of No Child Left Behind have added many interim assessments over the course of the year, some of which may be useful to 

inform instruction, some of which are actually a redundant exercise 

in mimicking the State tests. 

I think we have seen States and districts take meaningful steps 

to get rid of those, in some cases, replace low-level tests with a research project in social studies or with a science experiment and 

a lab report on that science experiment in place of a bubble test. 

We are seeing progress on this. I think the additional— 

Ms. BONAMICI. I want to get to another question. Thank you, Dr. 

King. Certainly, removing the high-stakes and changing that aspect will matter. 

During our subcommittee hearing on February 10, the Oklahoma 

State superintendent discussed her concern that their State’s current accountability system masks the performance of the State’s 

subgroup population. How does ESSA raise the floor for equity and 

address that concern? 

Mr. KING. Yes. It is critical that ESSA requires that information 

be provided on the performance of all subgroups, and I think Joy 

from Oklahoma spoke to you on the ways in which that will enhance equity in her State, that she wants to make sure that 

schools are paying attention to each of the subgroups. 

That is one of the areas where some States will need to make 

adjustments to their existing accountability systems, and I think 

State chiefs are eager to do that. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. I am going to try to squeeze in one 

more question. I appreciate the department’s commitment to hearing from stakeholders so far to date. Can you talk about how the 

department will continue to involve and be responsive to diverse 

education stakeholders? 

Mr. KING. Yes. We continue to meet with stakeholders across the 

department’s senior staff. I have been doing meetings myself with 

civil rights leaders across the country. We are going to continue to 

make sure we engage educators, whether we are doing the rulemaking process—the negotiated rulemaking process obviously has 

a particular structure, and when there is a rule, we will gather 

public comment on that. 

We see that as an ongoing conversation with stakeholders, and 

think that is one of the strengths of the Every Student Succeeds 

Act, that it really requires at every level, the Federal level and at 

the State level, meaningful engagement with educators, with parents, with community leaders, with civil rights leaders. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. My time has expired. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KLINE. Mr. Rokita? 

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the chairman. Dr. King, welcome back 

again, good to talk with you. Following up on Ms. Bonamici’s comments, I just want to say that February 10 hearing to me and I 

think most members of the committee was one where it was clearly 

demonstrated that these local leaders, elected and not elected, were 

clearly looking for the chance to show that they want to do their 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

35 

jobs, their job being education, which across this Nation is primarily a State issue. You would agree with that? 

Mr. KING. Yes. 

Mr. ROKITA. As we talked about yesterday, I have the privilege 

to serve as chairman of the K–12 Subcommittee, and I am also vice 

chairman of the Budget Committee, the latter experience has really 

taught me, as we kind of alluded to yesterday in stark detail, the 

very difficult fiscal challenges facing our country. 

For me, the concerns I have with out-of-control spending and 

skyrocketing debt is not just about dollars and cents, it is about the 

kind of future we are leaving our children and grandchildren, the 

same children and grandchildren we are trying to educate and 

brings us both to the table here today. 

We are all rightly concerned about the quality of education our 

children receive, no doubt, but too often we neglect to consider the 

kind of country that we are leaving them, that they will inherit. 

Make no mistake, if we stay on our present course, no one disputes 

that the country they inherit will be mired in debt, plagued by a 

weak economy, and left with fewer opportunities to earn a lifetime 

of success. 

At that point, in that kind of environment, one has to wonder if 

our present day education efforts will simply appear moot. I think 

we can all agree that our children and grandchildren deserve better. 

So, the crisis clearly is bigger than any one agency, certainly bigger than yours. Whenever possible, I believe we need to act on our 

responsibility to ensure a leaner and more accountable Federal 

Government. 

That is why one of my leading priorities was, as we worked to 

replace No Child Left Behind, to help roll back Washington’s education bureaucracy. Why is this important? Because every dollar 

spent here in Washington is money that could be spent in our Nation’s classrooms, or paying down that deficit and debt, that both 

me, the President, and everyone else in this country seems to want 

to do. 

So, in recent decades, the Federal education bureaucracy certainly has grown immensely. I would argue it has gotten out of control. Prior to the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act, the 

Department of Education operated more than 80 programs tied to 

the Nation’s classrooms, many of which were duplicative and ineffective. 

The bipartisan law that we just passed and signed by the President eliminates dozens of unnecessary programs and replaces them 

with the Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grant. This 

grant will provide States and school districts with the flexibility 

they need to better target resources to the needs of students, families, and their communities. 

By eliminating these duplicative programs, we help ensure Federal tax dollars are used in a more efficient manner, a goal I am 

assuming we both share. That means we are not only reducing the 

role of the Federal Government in K–12 education, although that 

is a great goal in itself as I stated, but we are also providing State 

and local leaders with the tools they need to shape their education 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

36 

programs in a way they see fit, as we saw in the February 10 hearing. 

Every district and every State has unique needs, and the Federal 

Government is in no way capable of knowing what works best for 

everyone. In other words, the parents and leaders know how to 

help our students better than Washington. 

What I want to ask you today is about a provision in the law 

that requires the Secretary of Education to ultimately identify the 

number of full-time positions associated with those eliminated programs, and then reduce the department’s staff by an equal amount. 

This is a common sense good government policy that will help us 

ensure that the dollars we spend have a direct and meaningful impact on a child’s education, a win for both students and taxpayers. 

So, Dr. King, I know you have begun taking steps to implement 

these provisions, but I am concerned those steps might be insufficient. The department recently posted information on its Web site 

detailing the total number of full-time equivalent positions associated with all the programs funded under the ESSA as it existed 

under No Child Left Behind. 

However, the department has only listed specific information for 

one program of the 49 eliminated under the ESSA. So, I have two 

questions. First, when will the department list the number of fulltime equivalent positions for all the impacted programs? Secondly, 

what will you do to ensure that the number of full-time equivalent 

positions are reduced by that final number within a year of ESSA’s 

enactment as required by the law? Thank you. 

Mr. KING. Thanks, appreciate the questions. As we look at the 

2016 budget, many of the programs that are eliminated in the 

Every Student Succeeds Act, do have 2016 appropriations. So, one 

of the distinctions I would make is that we have programs that we 

need to run in the 2016 year but then would not run in 2017, and 

that will allow an opportunity for appropriate reductions at that 

time. 

Happy to work with you and your staff on this issue. We certainly want to make sure that we target our resources to the programs that are essential to support States and districts. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. Ms. Adams? 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Ranking 

Member Scott, and thank you, Dr. King, for joining us again, and 

good luck this afternoon in your confirmation. 

Since being signed into law in 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act has always existed to ensure equal access to 

a quality education for some of our country’s most vulnerable student populations. For many of these students, education serves as 

a pathway out of poverty, a means to achieve long-term self-sufficiency, which is why passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act 

has been so critical, especially for places like Mecklenburg County 

that I represent. 

According to a Harvard study, children in Mecklenburg had one 

of the lowest chances of experiencing upward mobility in adulthood, 

with quality of education being one of the main delimitating factors. 

Dr. King, one of the most important components of a quality education is equitable and adequate resources. It is evident that stuCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

37 

dents who need the most are not getting the extra resources that 

they need. How do you plan to encourage States to look at what 

resources schools with disadvantaged students have and hold them 

accountable for providing resources to disadvantaged students in 

addition to improving student outcomes? 

Mr. KING. Thanks. I appreciate the question. I think there are 

two significant opportunities. One is as States move accountability 

systems beyond just looking at English and math performance, 

they will be able to build accountability systems that build in questions like are students progressing in science or social studies, are 

students getting access to art and music. There is an opportunity 

for State leadership that I think we will see many States take advantage of. 

The second significant opportunity is the requirement in the law 

that States report on access to some of these opportunities, are people spending on access to advanced course work, and that will 

make transparent whether or not students across schools are getting the resources they need. 

It will require vigilance both at the Federal level and at the 

State level to make sure those gaps in opportunity are closed. 

Ms. ADAMS. Okay. Thank you for that. I think it goes without 

saying that one of the main reasons No Child Left Behind was conceived was the clear disregard for the achievement of student subgroups. Without relieving the No Child Left Behind era, how will 

the department ensure—reliving, excuse me, how will the department ensure that there are strong parameters in place to protect 

our neediest students and that the States are adequately serving 

them? 

Mr. KING. We are committed that the regulations and guidance 

that we develop advance equity and excellence and address the 

needs of subgroups. 

We are still early in the process of gathering feedback and comment from stakeholders, but as we do that, we have heard a strong 

and clear message from the civil rights community and also from 

educational leaders, that they believe it is important to set guardrails at the Federal level that ensure that State accountability systems meaningfully intervene when subgroups are not performing, 

and that those interventions are intensified if progress is not made. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you. Dr. King, if some of my colleagues have 

their way and the department has an extremely limited role in the 

implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act, what negative 

outcomes may we be opening up our students to? 

Mr. KING. We believe that we can within this bipartisan law provide the guardrails necessary to protect equity. I would say as we 

look back at the last 50 years, what we know is that at times, 

States and districts have not lived up to their responsibility to 

serve all students well. 

I mentioned yesterday visiting part of the country where a district had concentrated the highest needs students in a small number of schools. They were racially isolated, socioeconomically isolated, and then received less resources than other schools in the 

community. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

38 

We have an obligation as a civil rights enforcement agency implementing a civil rights law to make sure States and districts 

must take responsibility for the success of all students. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentlelady yields back. Dr. Foxx? 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome back, Dr. King. 

Under No Child Left Behind, the Federal Government dictated how 

States and school districts measured school performance. Schools 

identified as underperforming or failing were forced to adopt prescriptive and burdensome school improvement plans. Reforms within those schools were dictated by the Federal Government. If the 

school failed to improve over several years, increasingly harsh corrective action was required. 

Within the federally mandated school improvement plans, States 

and local districts lost the right to determine what was needed to 

make positive changes. Congress recognized the negative impact 

this had on students, and we worked in a bipartisan fashion to 

pass a law that would restore State and local control of K–12 education. 

Now, under the Every Student Succeeds Act, schools and school 

districts are able to develop school improvement plans, approved 

and monitored by their State leaders. This new flexibility allows 

State and local leaders not only to collaborate but also to be held 

accountable and take responsibility when it comes to improving 

student learning and achievement. 

Two weeks ago, Dr. Vick Wilson, the superintendent of Hartselle 

City Schools in Hartselle, Alabama, came before the committee to 

discuss how the new law represents ‘‘The first time in 15 years the 

State and local education agencies can demonstrate what they can 

do to support student learning without Federal overreach.’’ 

Dr. Wilson emphasized the benefit of the new flexibility superintendents have under the Every Student Succeeds Act when he 

said ‘‘Every leader needs the flexibility to deal with these situations that are unique to their district in a manner that best meets 

the need. ESSA is a huge step in this direction, and will serve leaders as they strive to lead all learners up the stairs of success.’’ 

He went on to say ‘‘Throughout the United States, the Nation’s 

14,000 public school superintendents are charged with meeting and 

exceeding expectation of student achievement and learning for 

stakeholders at the local level. What works in Alabama might differ slightly from what works in Minnesota. ESSA provides a new 

opportunity for each of those leaders to craft and implement customized education for learners in their districts.’’ 

As you can see, State and local leaders are eager and excited to 

make the changes needed in their individual districts that will 

have a positive impact on their students. 

The Every Student Succeeds Act prohibits the Department of 

Education from prescribing school improvement strategies. The 

text of the law says ‘‘Nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize or permit the Secretary as a condition of approval of the 

State plan or revisions or amendments to the State plan to prescribe any specific school support and improvement strategies or 

activities that State or local educational agencies establish and imCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

39 

plement to intervene in support and improve schools and improve 

student outcomes.’’ 

That sounds very straightforward to me. In fact, it is one more 

example demonstrating Congress’ clear intent to reduce the Federal role and restore State and local control of our Nation’s K–12 

classrooms. 

I have a very simple question for you, Dr. King. Can you assure 

us that the department will comply with this prohibition, and all 

I need is a simple yes or no. 

Mr. KING. We will certainly in all of our actions be consistent 

with the letter of the law. As we are developing regulations and 

guidance, we will gather feedback and input from stakeholders and 

make sure that we use regulations and guidance to address areas 

where clarity is needed, but yes, we will ensure that we maintain 

the flexibility that school districts have and States have around the 

interventions in struggling schools, and we will also ensure they 

comply with the expectation of the law, that they meaningfully address achievement gaps. 

Ms. FOXX. So, there was a yes in there somewhere, I believe. 

Mr. KING. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentlelady yields back. Ms. Clark? 

Ms. CLARK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member 

Scott, and thank you for joining us again, Mr. Secretary, and best 

of luck this afternoon. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. 

Ms. CLARK. I wanted to talk briefly about the Preschool Development Grants, and the work that we have been able to do, and I 

think make great progress in developing the trauma-informed practices, which I am hopeful are going to be able to reduce suspension 

and expulsion that we are seeing in early education and child care. 

In Massachusetts alone in the last school year, we had over 600 

preschoolers suspended from their programs. At the same time, we 

are trying to change that narrative, and we have adopted the 

CSEFEL model, which was jointly developed by the Departments 

of Education and HHS, which I think will certainly help us make 

sure that exclusionary discipline is the last not a first resort for 

young children. 

So, as HHS starts implementing these Preschool Development 

Grants, I have two questions. One, how are you going to ensure 

that we are continuing our work and supporting our workforce 

training and development around trauma-informed education, and 

also, for States like Massachusetts that are midcourse in these 

grants, I know you are entering into a Memorandum of Understanding, but if you could expand on how you are going to do that 

transition. 

Mr. KING. Yes. Thanks for the question. So, early learning is, I 

think, critical to addressing what we face as a country. We know 

that students who have the benefit of high quality early learning 

do better. We worry a lot about the issue of exclusionary discipline 

in early learning. 

As you know, the percentage of African American students in 

early learning and Pre-K is around 18 percent of the percentage of 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

40 

students suspended, it is in the mid-40s, so there is work that we 

need to do. 

We have been working with HHS within the context of the Preschool Development Grant program and the Race to the Top - Early 

Learning Challenge, from the beginning. We have done joint guidance with them. We have been partnering in trying to support 

States and providers in attending to issues of training for educators 

and center directors, and we will continue to work with them in 

that. 

We also have a broader administration-wide effort, You’re My 

Brother’s Keeper, focused on getting school districts and preschool 

providers to rethink discipline and to focus on how we ensure that 

students get the support they need to succeed in the classroom. 

Ms. CLARK. Great. Also, in the Every Student Succeeds Act, 

there are several references to ‘‘specialized instructional support 

personnel.’’ This is a new term that refers to professionals such as 

school psychologists, social workers, speech-language pathologists, 

and school nurses who really provide our school-based prevention 

and intervention services. 

The law requires that States and local education agencies engage 

these professionals. How is the department going to help States 

and local policymakers and inform them about the role of these 

professionals and ensure that they are true collaborators in the implementation? 

Mr. KING. Both in our efforts, the departments together, public 

comment and feedback and to meet with stakeholders, we are attending to address personnel that you are describing. 

I think the voice of school counselors, for example, is hugely important as we think about how to improve school safety, school climate, support students in the transition between high school and 

postsecondary opportunities. 

We will also in our guidance and in the regulations that we create endeavor to ensure that States are doing a good job on stakeholder input, including input from the diverse range of professionals who work in schools. 

Ms. CLARK. Thank you so much. Mr. Chairman, for the first time 

ever, I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. I am so pleased. Thank you. The gentlelady 

yields back. Mr. Allen? 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Dr. 

King, for coming here today to discuss the implementation of the 

Every Student Succeeds Act. Both of my parents were in education. 

Obviously, we sat around the kitchen table many nights talking 

about how to make it better. 

You know, throughout our efforts to reform K–12 education and 

reducing the Federal role, restoring local control has remained a 

primary goal because it is our firm belief that State and local leaders know best what schools need to deliver a quality education to 

the students. 

Obviously, our teachers are very happy because of the ability to 

spend more time in the classroom and less time dealing with compliance issues. 

Unfortunately, for the last several decades, the Federal Government has assumed more and more control over K–12 education at 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

41 

the expense of State and local leaders. In fact, the Department of 

Education operated more than 80 programs tied to the Nation’s 

classrooms. This flood of bureaucracy largely dictated how States 

and school districts should spend limited resources, making it more 

difficult for States and schools to address local priorities and effectively serve their students. 

The Every Student Succeeds Act includes several provisions to 

restore flexibility to State and local leaders so they can identify and 

invest in the areas that best meet the needs of their students. 

As part of this act, Section 5002, the purpose of this part is to 

allow States and local education agencies the flexibility to target 

Federal funds to programs and activities that most effectively address the unique needs of States and localities. 

This is the flexibility that States and local leaders have been 

waiting for. We hear from teachers, superintendents, local leaders, 

and the business community in our districts all the time about having the flexibility to use their resources as they see fit to allow 

them to better meet unique needs of their students. 

That is why I was surprised and concerned to see that your 

budget proposal to change the distribution of funds at the local 

level from a formula grant program to a competitive grant, something not explicitly authorized in the law. 

The difference between the two is quite significant. Congress intended to provide all schools additional funding flexibility through 

a fair and equitable formula grant. The administration is proposing 

a scheme that will leave the department in charge of picking winners and losers. This is not at all what Congress intended. 

Could you explain why your budget proposal ignores the letter 

and intent of the provisions in the law establishing this important 

flexible grant program, and will you ensure the committee that the 

department will implement the Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grant as Congress authorized it, as well as protect the 

State and local funding flexibility provided under the law? 

Mr. KING. As I mentioned earlier, I think the grant program has 

tremendous potential to be helpful to students, whether it is investing in the arts or school support services, creating safe and supportive climates for our students. 

One of the challenges is ensuring that the distribution results in 

schools having a meaningful allotment of funds through which they 

can actually produce a program that has a meaningful impact for 

our students. 

I am certainly open to working with the committee on how we 

do that, but I think whatever funding level we establish, we then 

have to ask are individual districts and schools going to have 

grants large enough to make a difference for their students. Often 

times the tension, as you know, around competitive grants is if you 

do not have enough money to have a meaningful impact, rather 

than spread the money very thinly in a way that does not have 

much impact for students, there can be an advantage to a competitive process. 

We are certainly open to working with you as the budget process 

moves forward. 

Mr. ALLEN. That is the intent we need, that we follow the letter 

of the law here as far as these grants are concerned to make sure 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

42 

it is fair and equitable to each and every State. Thank you for 

agreeing to do that. 

The other thing that we need to address as far as education is 

concerned is the motivation of the student. You know, you are in 

the business. Obviously, we are all concerned about our dropout 

rate. We have 23 seconds left. Can you give me your ideas on how 

we can motivate folks to want to stay in school and get a good education and then go get a good job? 

Mr. KING. Yes. 

Chairman KLINE. You have 12 seconds. 

Mr. KING. A 12 second version of that? I will say I think reauthorization of the Perkins Career and Technical Education Act 

could be very helpful. There are a set of students who we may not 

be reaching with the traditional academic program today, but if we 

could integrate that traditional academic program with a strong career path, engagement with employers, and a clear path to their future, that could make a huge difference. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. 

Takano? 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary King, can you 

tell us what can the department do to ensure equitable access to 

effective teachers for the highest needs students? 

Mr. KING. I think it is a hugely important issue. You know, one 

of the things that I think the Every Student Succeeds Act importantly maintains from No Child Left Behind is this commitment to 

equitable access to effective teaching. 

We have been working with States on educator equity plans. 

States, I think, have been very thoughtful about that work. For example, I believe it is Minnesota that is focused on how you might 

help paraprofessionals prepare for transitions into teaching, to 

identify paraprofessionals who are close to the community, may 

speak the language of students, and give them opportunities to become teachers. 

We have a State like Vermont that is focused on how you give 

students experiences in teacher prep with rural education so you 

can attract them to rural schools where there is a high need. 

I think we have to have targeted strategies State by State, and 

we look forward to continuing to work with States on those equity 

plans. 

Mr. TAKANO. Well, during the reauthorization debate, one thing 

that was agreed on was that children were being tested too often 

in schools. Teachers are spending way more time on testing than 

teaching, and students are spending more time taking tests than 

learning. 

One way that the ESSA addresses this is by including the innovative assessment pilot, to allow States to be able to develop assistance with assessments that better align with student-centered competency based learning models. 

How does the department plan on moving forward with the pilot? 

Mr. KING. We are in the early stages of gathering feedback and 

input on areas where States and districts need more guidance, so 

we will gather that input and based on that determine the process 

we will follow to give guidance on the innovative pilot. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

43 

I will say we have a great example in New Hampshire. New 

Hampshire has been at this for several years. They have been 

working to develop performance-based assessments that they are 

now piloting in a number of their districts, that will ultimately become their State-wide—they hope will become their State-side assessment system. They have learned a tremendous amount. 

I think the Council of Chief State School Officers is working with 

chiefs to make sure they learn from New Hampshire as we move 

forward. 

Mr. TAKANO. Wonderful. Thank you. I look forward to the implementation. Several States, including my own home State of California, are currently or will be considering legislation this year to 

disaggregate data for Asian American and Native Hawaiian and 

Pacific Islanders. 

The Education Department pledged technical assistance to States 

and districts interested in doing this, and the ESSA directs the 

Secretary to provide this technical assistance, as well as assistance 

in using such data to improve outcomes, academic outcomes. 

How do you, Mr. Secretary, plan on implementing this portion of 

the law in a timely manner to meet the demand from Asian American and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander communities and 

interests from the States? 

Mr. KING. I am very interested in this question. I think there is 

some good evidence from Washington State, for example, as well as 

Hawaii, around the leverage that can come from disaggregation, 

where you can better identify subgroups that need attention and 

intervention, where there is very dramatic variations in performance. 

We are committed to providing that technical assistance. Our P– 

12 team is working on thinking about how we best support States 

in that work. States also have an opportunity as they use their 

flexibility to design new accountability systems to take that into 

consideration, and to go further with disaggregation than is the 

minimum requirement of the law. 

Mr. TAKANO. Well, how will States ensure that Asian American 

and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander communities, particularly those with disparities and educational outcomes are included 

and are aware of opportunities, and to provide our input, for example, in the creation of State plans, how will you ensure the States 

are transparent about these opportunities? 

Mr. KING. We will certainly ensure both that we gather input 

and feedback from diverse communities. We have already met with 

some rights’ organizations that are focused on the needs of Asian 

American students, so we will do that at the Federal level, and we 

will ensure in our regulations and guidance that States understand 

they have a responsibility to consult with diverse stakeholders. 

Mr. TAKANO. Wonderful. ESSA makes several references to ‘‘specialized instruction support personnel.’’ This is a new term that refers to professionals such as school psychologists, school social 

workers, speech-language pathologists, school nurses, et cetera. 

How will the department inform State and local policymakers 

about the important role of these professionals? 

Mr. KING. We certainly will gather input from— 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

44 

Chairman KLINE. I am sorry, Dr. King. The gentleman’s time has 

expired. Mr. Bishop? 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your time today and testifying. 

I wanted to build, if I could, on my colleague from Georgia’s 

question about the intent of the law. Specifically, I want to talk to 

you about a provision that is important to my constituents. 

My constituents frequently reach out to me and to my office regarding Common Core. I must say as a parent, I agree with their 

concerns. What started off as a State led effort, it quickly grew into 

an avenue for Federal overreach and into local classrooms, whether 

through conditional waivers or, of course, Race to the Top, many 

States and schools got coerced into adopting Common Core. 

One superintendent, Todd Gazda of Ludlow, Massachusetts, was 

cited in the New York Times describing the government’s intrusion 

as ‘‘It was almost like extortion. If you want money, you have to 

do things the way we want.’’ 

As a former State legislator, I can absolutely agree and I can relate with the sentiments of his frustration. 

Setting standards, developing curriculum, and assessing student 

achievements are State and local responsibility, not Federal ones, 

and that is why this committee was very sure to include several 

provisions which were included in the Every Students Succeeds Act 

that strictly prohibited the Federal Government from racing into 

our States and coercing our schools into adopting Common Core or 

any other standards or assessments. 

The law puts a firm end to the Federal Government’s bullying 

States into submission when it comes to how they choose to teach 

their students. We have so many very qualified educators and parents who are involved and know best for their students in their cities, and to have to teach to a Federal template is counterproductive, to say the very least. 

That being said, the administration has implied that the Every 

Student Succeeds Act includes requirements for college and career 

ready standards or supports college and career readiness. 

Now, for many, that is code for Common Core. I just would like 

to, I guess, take this opportunity first of all to ask you, Dr. King, 

exactly how many times does the phrase ‘‘college and career ready’’ 

appear in the Every Student Succeeds Act? 

Mr. KING. I could not tell you the number of times, but to be 

clear— 

Mr. BISHOP. Just a second. I do not mean to interrupt but I want 

to make this point. It appears zero times. The term ‘‘college and career ready’’ does not appear anywhere in the act, yet the administration is sending a message that directly contradicts our intent to 

prohibit the Federal involvement in setting standards or assessments. 

On that point, do you know how many provisions in this law explicitly prohibit the Federal Government from dictating to States 

what kind of academic standards they can or cannot adopt? 

Mr. KING. We are very clear and have always supported that 

standards should be State developed, State adopted, and— 

Mr. BISHOP. Well, good, this is helping you then. Four times it 

specifically prohibits the Federal Government. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

45 

There are four provisions. I would like to just cycle through a 

couple of them that very clearly state that the Federal Government 

should not be involved in the coercion of States in adopting specific 

standards. 

Section 8527 specifically says ‘‘No funds provided to the department under the act may be used by the department, whether 

through grant, contract, or cooperative agreement, to endorse, approve, develop, require or sanction any curriculum, including any 

curriculum aligned to Common Core standards developed on a 

Common Core States standards initiative or any other academic 

standards common to a significant number of States.’’ 

Cycling through to Section 8544, specifically and unambiguously 

provides ‘‘Nothing in this act shall be construed to prohibit a State 

from withdrawing from Common Core standards or from otherwise 

revising their standards.’’ 

You can see Congress was very clear. In fact, yesterday a State 

legislator in Michigan introduced a bill to get rid of Common Core 

in the State of Michigan in reaction to this law. 

I just hope that you will ensure this committee based on your initial response here that the Department of Education will respect 

the clear letter of the law and ensure that Federal assessment does 

not force, coerce, or otherwise impose State specific standards to 

set academic standards. 

Mr. KING. Prior to the adoption of the Every Student Succeeds 

Act and under the Every Student Succeeds Act, we are committed 

to the principle that standards should be determined by States, developed by States, and the implementation of curriculum is a matter for State and local decision-making. 

That said, it is important that the Every Student Succeeds Act 

sets the goal that States will have high standards that move towards students graduating from high school ready for success, college, and careers, ready to take credit bearing course work when 

they get to college after completing their high school— 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mrs. Davis? 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to see you 

again, Dr. King, and in just a little while, we will be able to call 

you ‘‘Secretary King.’’ Thank you for being here. 

I want to just very, very briefly mention, just to thank you, the 

department, I think they are following through on a letter that was 

received regarding increasing diversity among our schools, and we 

are very pleased to see movement on that, and to be able to talk 

about that issue more. I greatly appreciate it. 

I would just respond to my colleague as well and to others because I think we certainly understand the language and the intent 

of the law, but I think that the concern and the opportunity to offer 

guidance in any number of areas is very important. 

And particularly, we have talked about before, I know as a teacher and as an educator yourself, the ability of communities and districts across the country to share their valuable experiences is very, 

very important. 

I wonder if you could discuss briefly the role really of the department to engage in that discussion, to be able to specifically in Title 

II address ways that districts can develop systems that recruit, preCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

46 

pare, provide ongoing job embedded support for teachers, of course, 

but also for our principals. 

So, given the fact that we have to be very careful about the way 

that is done, not prescribing, but also encouraging and guiding, 

how do you see that role? 

Mr. KING. So, three quick examples. I think there is an opportunity with the teacher equity plans that States are implementing 

to lift up good work that is happening around the country, States 

that are thinking in smart ways about how to bridge shortages that 

they are facing around teachers for English language learners or 

teachers for students with disabilities. 

States that are investing in teacher leadership opportunities, 

where teachers are serving as mentors or coaches for their colleagues, able to lead projects in their schools and districts. 

Two, we have an initiative called Teach to Lead, which is about 

bringing teachers together who are leading from their classrooms, 

teachers who are doing interesting innovative work in their schools 

and districts to improve parent engagement, improve academic outcomes for students at risk, think about how to use technology in 

smart new ways to help students. 

We are bringing those teachers together so they can share best 

practices, and I think that is an important role for the department. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Do you see that more in face-to-face interaction, Web 

sites? We know there are multiple Web sites. Many schools, universities, who put out Web sites regarding how even to have a very 

inclusive interactive evaluation process for teachers. Is that something that you—are you feeling you have some prohibitions against 

doing something like that, or is it pretty clear that is a guidance? 

Mr. KING. You know, it is clear that is guidance and a resource 

and technical assistance that we can provide to States and districts. We also have technical assistance centers that are focused 

on helping States and districts with innovative projects to strengthen teaching, and certainly we will continue to do that work. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. I appreciate that. I think particularly for 

our principals as well, we know how important that is. We know 

there are some outstanding programs in the country, and people 

can take a look at those. 

I would hope that none of us would want you to feel sort of constricted in being able to share really some outstanding practices. 

One of the things that we all deal with is how do you scale up. We 

know there are great examples across the country, and yet, trying 

to bring those with a real focus in an area so you have kind of a 

critical mass, and there is no question whether or not these programs can be utilized effectively throughout the country. 

So, I hope we will be able to do that and explore that, and perhaps the committee as well can be able to engage in some of those 

practices that I think could be very helpful to schools. 

Mr. KING. Absolutely. 

Mrs. DAVIS. I think the act supports that. Thank you very much. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentlelady yields back. Ms. Stefanik? 

Ms. STEFANIK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. King, thank you 

for joining us for a second day. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

47 

I want to build on Mr. Bishop’s line of questioning. I want to ask 

you about your experience as the commissioner of education in our 

home State of New York. 

As you can imagine and I am sure you are very familiar with, 

I hear lots of concerns, questions and comments from students, 

from teachers, from parents, about the rushed and fundamentally 

flawed implementation of Common Core in New York State. 

To me, the feedback that I hear is that across party lines, there 

is frustration with teacher evaluations, with high-stakes testing, 

and sky high opt-out rates. In my district, for example, opt-out 

rates are some of the highest in the State with schools in Franklin 

and Hekimer Counties, reporting opt-out rates in the high 80s. 

So, my question for you today is what lessons did you learn from 

the fundamentally flawed implementation and the rushed implementation in New York State, and do you think mistakes were 

made? 

Mr. KING. We have to go back to as States have moved over the 

last few years towards higher standards, what was the reason, 

what was the rationale? What we know, whether it is New York 

or all across the country, too many of the students who graduated 

from high school graduated under-prepared for what is next. 

As you know, on the SUNY campuses, SUNY is spending millions of dollars on remedial courses in the highest needs communities. At SUNY and CUNY, the State university system and the 

City university system, you have campuses where 80 to 90 percent 

of entering students are required to take remedial classes, essentially high school classes, for which they and their families pay college prices. 

So, the challenge is how do you ensure that the system is pointed 

towards high standards that allow students to graduate ready for 

success. That is a hard process. It requires consistent stakeholder 

engagement— 

Ms. STEFANIK. Do you think you adequately got feedback consistently from stakeholders? One of the concerns that I hear from 

teachers is they felt they were not adequately a part of the process 

and the discussion. 

Mr. KING. New York, as in many States, teachers were very actively engaged in the process of developing standards, and also adjusting standards, and that process continues. I think we will always expect that States will consistently seek feedback from teachers and principals as they adjust their standards. 

I do think for New York and around the country, one of the challenges is the implementation of higher standards has come along 

side changes in teacher evaluation, and it is fair to say, and this 

is true again across the country, in many places those contentious 

discussions about teacher evaluation got completed with the issues 

around higher standards. 

I think this new law gives us an opportunity for a reset on those 

conversations around teacher evaluation in particular, and there is 

an opportunity for States to look at how do they ensure that their 

valuation systems are actually providing support to educators, how 

do we ensure that they do not feel like a ‘‘gotcha system’’ but rather feel like a source of support, and how do States ensure they are 

leveraging, whether it is Title I or Title II dollars to support teachCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

48 

ers around implementing higher standards, again, with a willingness to adjust that effort as time goes along. 

Ms. STEFANIK. Just to go back to my initial question, you would 

not have done anything differently. Do you believe there were any 

mistakes made in the flawed roll out of Common Core in New York 

State? 

Mr. KING. Again, in New York, as in the rest of the country, I 

think we have learned a lot about the change process over the last 

few years. There were, I think, in many States an unfortunate phenomena, there was an unfortunate phenomena of the teacher evaluation work and work of raising standards being completed together, and I think that generated both while I was there and after 

I left its own set of tensions. 

Ms. STEFANIK. So, as commissioner, when you served as commissioner of New York State, what would you have done differently? 

I consistently hear from teachers, parents, and students about the 

rushed implementation, that their viewpoints were not integrated. 

I know you are Acting Secretary of Education, you are nominated 

to be Secretary of Education. I think it is really important to see 

if you think if there were any mistakes made when you served as 

commissioner of New York State. 

Mr. KING. I think it is more a question of what we learned over 

time. Again, not just in New York but across the country. I think 

part of what we are seeing with the testing action plan, we did 

something similar in New York, grants to school districts, to bring 

together educators to look at the assessments they were given, 

evaluate which ones are useful and which are not, and which could 

be reduced. 

That was a good step. I think us in New York and folks across 

the country wish we had done that sooner. I think the conversation 

that will be unleashed by the Every Student Succeeds Act about 

how we broaden the definition of ‘‘educational excellence,’’ I think, 

creates an opportunity. 

I do not think anyone intended for science and social studies or 

art and music to get less attention when No Child Left Behind was 

adopted, but the reality is in many places, they did. We now have 

an opportunity with the new law to relook at that and for States 

to think more broadly about how they define ‘‘educational excellence.’’ 

Chairman KLINE. The gentlelady’s time has expired, I am sorry. 

Ms. STEFANIK. Thank you. 

Chairman KLINE. Mr. DeSaulnier? 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank 

you, Doctor, from what I have been able to see personally, and 

watching on television, and hearing your testimony in the last few 

days, that it demonstrates at least to me and I think to all of us 

your commitment and your passion for the career you have been 

embarked on, and your future position, hopefully. 

I wanted to ask you questions about after school programs and 

intersession programs, and this has already been brought up in today’s hearing, but there has been bipartisan effort on some of these 

issues. 

And when we look back—I am old enough to remember when we 

first started talking about this, and I think if memory serves me, 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

49 

Congress in the 1960s had the Jenkins Report, who talked about 

the importance of not just socioeconomic on the achievement gap 

or what had become the achievement gap, but also how we address 

that. 

First of all, thank you for your support for community learning centers, that you kept in the budget at $1 billion, and the success 

of those programs. 

Secondly, probably not so positively, but I would like you to talk 

about this, about where this may engage. Mr. Thompson and I 

worked on a bipartisan effort for family engagement centers that 

you did not put in the budget. 

Clearly, these are the kind of things that we now know looking 

back that if we had fully funded them and kept them going, the 

achievement gap might not be what it is today. 

So, could you speak about family engagement, particularly in disadvantaged communities, where there is such a challenge and you 

have put so much of your career into, but how do you foresee not 

only in this budget but in coming budgets, but if we were to fully 

fund these, and I believe the achievement gap would start to be 

significantly reduced. 

Mr. KING. Yes. You know, one of the challenges as we developed 

this budget was trying to figure out how we align the President’s 

priorities with constraints created by the caps in the budget agreement. 

I will say I think family engagement obviously is a hugely important issue in schools, it is critically important that educators are 

well prepared around that. The budget includes funding for teacher 

and principal preparation, innovation. 

I think one of the places where we can stand some innovation 

and teacher and principal preparation is around making sure folks 

are well prepared to engage with families as partners when they 

enter schools. 

There is an opportunity with Title IV dollars, you know, the existing programs that were in the 2016 budget for Title IV were at 

about $278 million. We added to that $222 million in the President’s budget to get to $500 million. Title IV resources could be 

used for elements of family engagement, partnerships with families 

that would create safe and supportive school climates and strengthening the breadth of kids’ academic experience. 

I think there are opportunities within the President’s budget to 

direct resources towards family engagement, but clearly it is an 

area that as a country we need to do more. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. So, if you were to project out over a period of 

time knowing in California and also having spent some time in 

your State, in Harlem, with a study from Columbia University, but 

in areas in Los Angeles and the Bay Area, where I am from, including my district, when these programs are up and are sustainable, there is a real sense, as you know, of empowerment for the 

whole community, and in communities that often times do not feel 

that ever in terms of government agencies. 

So, when you do not fund them or when you fund them and then 

take them away or marginalize them, the effect not just on the 

child but on the community and through multiple generations just 

keeps reinforcing, I think, that there are answers, but we sort of 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

50 

were loosey with the ball. We keep saying this time we are going 

to be there but then we go away. 

So, I appreciate your comments, but say you were to stay in this 

job for longer than just a year, how would you project out those 

kinds of investments, and how can we make them sustainable, and 

still hold them to account? 

Mr. KING. I think we do need to build on investments in family 

engagement. It may be there are smarter ways to use existing resources, Title I is another place where districts could be investing 

resources in family partnerships. 

I also think we are seeing with our Promise Neighborhoods initiative the leverage that comes when you have schools partnering 

with community-based organizations, so that you broaden the outreach to parents and can engage parents on multiple levels, both 

as the first teacher of their children, but then also providing parents with opportunities to get a GED if they need that, opportunities to get employment training, opportunities to get language 

skills. 

We are seeing some very strong examples in Promise Neighborhoods and in our innovation, education and innovation and research programs. 

So, I think this is a place where there is good momentum, and 

we have to continue to build on that momentum. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Carter, you are 

recognized. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you. Dr. King, thank you for being here this 

week. We appreciate the time that you have committed to us this 

week very much. 

You know, I am a freshman member of the House, and quite 

often, I am asked what have you done since you have been there. 

I point to this, and I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, because 

this is one of the things that I am very proud of that we have done, 

this devolution of power from the Federal level to the State level. 

It is very important. 

You are going to play an important role. Your department is 

going to play an important role in implementing this, and delivering on the promises that we have made to reduce the Federal 

role, to restore State and local controls, and most importantly, to 

empower parents to hold schools accountable. 

Over the last seven years, I have witnessed in the State of Georgia the Federal Government using rules and regulations and guidance to impose the one-size-fits-all policies and the micromanaged 

schools, hampering the ability of parents and teachers and State 

and local officials to address the unique needs of their students, 

and that is very important to me. 

I believe education at the local level is the best. I am very adamantly in favor of this, and I want to make sure it is implemented 

like we intended for it to be. 

The reforms that we have in Every Student Succeeds gets the 

Washington bureaucrats out of it, and that is what we want, and 

that is very important, very important to me, very important to my 

constituents. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

51 

We can finally stop Common Core. I can tell you in the 1st District of Georgia, this is what people would want, and we want to 

make sure this gets done. 

I want to talk specifically about some provisions in the law that 

protect State and local early childhood efforts from Federal interference. This is very important. The law is very clear that early 

child care and education programs are a State and local responsibility. 

In fact, I read from Section 8549(b) of the law, and you can see 

it here, ‘‘It is the sense of Congress that the State retains the right 

to make decisions free from Federal intrusion concerning its system 

of early learning and child care, and whether or not to use funding 

under this act to offer early childhood education programs.’’ 

It is very clear on what we meant for that. It broadly outlines 

how States can better serve children and families, and it highlights 

the efforts to provide parents—the most important role that they 

play, they are the ones who are really the key here—provides them 

with a variety of programs and services, and protects the rights of 

local providers to design the programs that best meet the needs of 

the children that they serve. 

When it comes to implementing the Preschool Development 

Grant program, the Every Student Succeeds Act deliberately clarifies, it says ‘‘Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize 

the Secretary of Health and Human Services or the Secretary of 

Education to establish any criterion for grants made under this section.’’ 

It is very clear on what we are stating there. The law always 

specifies that it is up to the States, not the Federal Government, 

to develop and implement learning curriculum, standards, assessments, as well as specific measures or indicators of quality in the 

systems that states use to assess the quality of the programs and 

the providers. 

You want to know why? The reason is because it is parents and 

teachers who know what is best for their children, not the Federal 

Government. This is something I believe very strongly in. 

The States are now responsible. They are responsible now for defining terms such as ‘‘high quality’’ as it relates to early childhood 

programs, determining teacher qualifications and evaluations, 

specifying class sizes, setting expectations for scope and duration of 

programs, not the Department of Education. 

So, as the First Five Years Fund, in support of these provisions 

through the Every Student Succeeds Act, State leadership will 

have the opportunity to efficiently coordinate their early childhood 

systems, developing a plan to improve and expand upon what they 

are already doing. 

So, Dr. King, my question to you is how will you work with the 

Department of Health and Human Services to ensure that these 

provisions are honored so that the States can provide children and 

families quality early learning opportunities without Federal interference? 

Mr. KING. We certainly, as we move forward with implementation of the Preschool Development Grants and the successor program in the Every Student Succeeds Act, we will continue to work 

closely with Health and Human Services to support States and disCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

52 

tricts and programs that they have designed, that reflect their 

work on ensuring students have access to high quality opportunities. 

I think as a country, as we think about the direction of early 

childhood education, we have to be focused on the issue of quality, 

are the teachers who are in the early learning context well prepared for the diverse students with which they are engaging? Are 

we doing everything we can to ensure inclusive environments? 

As you know, we have programs for preschool children under 

IDEA, and to the extent that we can ensure those students have 

access to inclusion in the general education classroom, and we 

should— 

Chairman KLINE. Dr. King, I am sorry, but you have a hard stop 

time and Mr. Carter’s time has expired, and we are going to try 

to move expeditiously through the next three members, starting 

with Dr. Roe. 

Mr. ROE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and sorry, Dr. King, I 

missed the first part. I had to be at a Veterans Affairs markup. 

There are many issues Congress wanted to address in reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, perhaps the 

most significant issue was the Federal Government’s top-down approach to holding schools accountable. 

The Every Student Succeeds Act gives the power back to the 

States to establish accountability systems that work best for their 

schools. The law outlines several broad parameters for State leaders to look at as they develop State-based accountability systems. 

However, States now have the flexibility to weigh each expectation as they see fit. Within these State-based accountability systems, States will evaluate their public schools based on proficiency 

in reading and math, English proficiency for English learners, and 

graduation rates for high school students, a valid and reliable 

State-wide indicator for elementary and middle schools, and at 

least one other indicator of school quality or student success. 

The Every Student Succeeds Act, and this is a critical difference 

from No Child Left Behind, also allows State leaders to establish 

their State’s long-term goals as well as the measurements of interim progress they will use to evaluate progress toward those 

goals. 

As a result, the law successfully returns the responsibility of accountability back to State and local leaders who know better than 

anyone what their students need to succeed in school. 

As Education Week noted, ‘‘The Every Student Succeeds Act is 

a U-turn from the current much maligned version of the ESEA law, 

No Child Left Behind Act, States’ wide discretion in setting goals, 

figuring out just what to hold the schools and districts accountable 

for and deciding how to intervene in low-performing schools.’’ 

Key education stakeholders have also praised the new law. The 

chief counsel of a State school officer said, and I quote, ‘‘Through 

the Every Student Succeeds Act, States have the flexibility they 

need to improve education outcomes for all kids while at the same 

time maintaining strong accountability.’’ 

The Every Student Succeeds Act makes clear that the Department is prohibited from prescribing the indicators States use in 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

53 

their accountability systems beyond what is explicitly outlined in 

the statute. 

Dr. King, my question is what will you do to ensure your implementation of the law protects explicit authority of States to determine the weight and mix of indicators, both academic and non-academic indicators, that are used in their accountability systems? 

Mr. KING. I appreciate the question. You know, as we move forward with implementation, I think we have a great opportunity for 

States to leverage their flexibility with respect to accountability 

systems and interventions. 

On the accountability side, I think we have an opportunity where 

States can broaden how they define an excellent education to make 

their definition more well-rounded than the narrow focus on 

English and math assessments that we saw during the No Child 

Left Behind era. 

An opportunity for States to look at students’ progress. I mentioned this earlier, in science and social studies, arts, music, 

socioemotional learning. 

On the issue of interventions, there is an opportunity for States 

and districts to develop much more targeted interventions, freedom 

from the one-size-fits-all approach of No Child Left Behind. 

Where a school identifies, for example, that their English language learners are struggling, they should be able to tailor a response that is around teacher professional development and teacher support to work effectively with English learners, rather than 

having to use a cookie cutter solution that is provided external to 

the districts. 

I think there is tremendous opportunity. As we develop guidance 

and regulations, we will take input very seriously from all stakeholders, including the counsel of chief State School officers, superintendents, teachers, principals, civil rights leaders, community 

leaders, and ensure State and local flexibility within the guardrails 

of protecting students’ civil rights. 

Mr. ROE. I appreciate that response. I do want to work with you 

on yesterday’s question on the higher ed part of reducing the incredible amount of rules and regulations, and I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Grothman? 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Thank you. Thanks again for joining us. I am 

going to talk to you a little bit about teacher evaluations, something I have been interested in for a long time, just wrapped up 

a book last night, ‘‘The Smartest Kids in the World,’’ and I would 

recommend it to you. You can see how different countries around 

the world deal with getting the best teachers. 

Nevertheless, I think one of the goals of the Every Student Succeeds Act is to remove or to clarify, as we have up here on the 

screen, it says ‘‘Nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize 

or permit the Secretary to prescribe any aspect or parameter of a 

teacher, principal, or other school leader in the evaluation system 

within a State or local educational agency.’’ 

You know, I think it is a great thing that we have 50 different 

States and a lot of times in those States it varies from district to 

district as to how they evaluate their teachers. 

In the past, prior to passing this bill, the Department of Education forced States into adopting prescriptive teacher evaluation 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

54 

policies in exchange for additional Federal funding or much needed 

relief from No Child Left Behind, be put into a straightjacket and 

have to do an evaluation system that the district did not want, and 

you also had the situation of all sorts of different evaluation systems and the ability to pick the best around the country for every 

individual district. 

What I would like to get from you today is just to clarify, and 

you see what the statute says, I want you to assure the committee 

that the department intends to follow the law, and we are not 

going to have any more actions in which you require or coerce 

States or school districts to adopt a certain teacher evaluation system or even specific elements within a teacher evaluation system, 

can we be confident now that those days are gone? 

Mr. KING. Yes. We are very clear that the law puts teacher evaluation in the hands of States and districts, and I think we have 

an opportunity with the new law for a reset in the conversation 

about teacher evaluation. 

I do think we have technology over the last decade where teachers in many places have felt attacked or blamed by the discussions 

around evaluation, and now States and districts can use that flexibility in smart ways. 

It is important you referenced Amanda Ripley’s book. I think 

there are very interesting opportunities for States to leverage their 

flexibility now and to focus on teacher leadership in the way that 

some of our international competitors do, to focus on strengthening 

teacher preparation in some of the ways our international competitors do, to create mentoring and induction support in some of the 

ways our international competitors do. 

So, I think the new law gives us an opportunity for States to 

reset their approach on issues of teacher quality, certainly it is important that the law maintains the focus on equitable access to effective teaching, and States are doing good work on their equity 

plans that we will continue to support. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Just to understand, you are not too much in the 

conversation? 

Mr. KING. Right. I understand our role is to try to support 

States, certainly the Teacher and School Leader Incentive Fund, 

for example, is an opportunity to support districts in their work in 

lifting up teacher leadership and support. We are clear that the 

law makes teacher evaluation a project for States and districts. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Thanks very much. I yield the remainder of my 

time. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman, and he yields back. Mr. 

Messer? 

Mr. MESSER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Dr. King. I 

admire your stamina. I know you have had a lot going on in the 

last couple of days, and I think this may be the caboose of your 

questioning, so thank you for your patience, and thank you for the 

gracious way you have conducted yourself. 

Yesterday, we had an opportunity to talk a little bit about some 

of the challenges with Indiana’s charter school funding. Today, I 

want to talk to you a little more about the broader opportunities 

that come with educational choice for kids in America. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

55 

We have all either seen or heard accounts of how empowering 

parents gives better opportunities for not only kids but the communities that they live in as well. 

Just a few weeks ago, we had a remarkable testimony from a 

young woman, Denisha Merriweather, a graduate student of the 

University of South Florida. She came to the committee and gave 

a personal account of how school choice and the opportunities associated with that have changed her life. 

She began by painting a picture of what school was like for her 

before she had a change in educational opportunity, and I will 

quote from her, she said ‘‘My grades were bad and I did not understand most of my school work. I got picked on by other kids because I was doing so poorly in school, and I kept getting into fights, 

I failed third grade, not once but twice. 

All too well, it seemed my future was mapped out for me. I would 

follow in the footsteps of my mother, uncle, and brother, who all 

dropped out of school. I was unmotivated, and learning became a 

nightmare, a punishment for being a child.’’ 

Ms. Merriweather went on to talk about how local school choice 

options allowed her to transfer into a better school, and as a result 

of that, her life took a dramatic turn. Not only did she graduate 

from high school, she went on to college, and now she is pursuing 

a Master’s degree. 

These are stories we have all heard before. I have visited the 

BASIS School in Washington, D.C. where kids from every zip code 

in Washington, D.C. are obtaining STEM level training and having 

incredible success in their life. When I met with those young people, the one question they asked me is why does not every kid in 

America have the same kinds of opportunities that I have. 

Today, over 44 States provide school choice options, and as you 

know, the Every Student Succeeds Act includes provisions that 

support and encourage educational choice and opportunity for kids. 

That is really my question for you, Dr. King, how will the department ensure that these provisions, access to charter schools, magnet schools, and direct student services—how will you make sure 

that the intent of Congress in that act is implemented, so that we 

make sure that kids’ futures are not determined by their zip codes, 

and every kid has an opportunity to succeed? 

Mr. KING. We have several great opportunities. I think the charter school program and the CMO program are both helping to drive 

the creation of high performing charters, and at the same time, improve the quality of charter authorizing, because as you know, the 

promise of school choice is undermined when we have charters that 

are chronically underperforming and authorizers fail to act. 

Mr. MESSER. The same with public schools, we have to hold public schools accountable as well. 

Mr. KING. That is exactly right. I think there is opportunity with 

those two charter programs. There is opportunity with the magnet 

program. The President’s budget proposes an increase in the magnet program. 

I think it is an opportunity for magnet programs to learn from 

evidence about the kinds of magnets that are driving better outcomes and good examples nationally like the work that is happening in Hartford, Connecticut, for example, creating magnets 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

56 

that actually draw tremendous student interest from across district 

lines with quality arts programs, for example, that are appealing 

or our STEM programs that are appealing to parents. 

The President has in the budget a proposal called ‘‘Stronger Together,’’ which I mentioned yesterday, which focuses on socioeconomic integration of schools, again creating opportunities for 

students to go to schools that are created across district lines or 

within a district, to intentionally serve a diverse population and 

offer opportunities. 

Mr. MESSER. Thank you. I know we are at the hard stop. I would 

just say this, I appreciate your testimony. Frankly, while I would 

like to see us do much more, I appreciate your predecessor’s commitment to making sure that at least in the space of charter 

schools that we were partners in making sure kids have better opportunities. I hope that work will continue with you. 

Mr. KING. Absolutely. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. All questions have been asked and answered, I believe. Let me turn to Mr. 

Scott for his closing remarks. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Dr. King for testifying today, and I want to thank you for holding the hearing. 

The committee is continuing to fulfill its responsibility to perform 

oversight on this new law. This ongoing process will expose problems, either overreach by the department or failure of the department to enforce the provisions of the law. 

Let’s be clear that States and localities were given the authority 

and flexibility but they were not given a waiver. They are required 

by law to assess the performance and graduation rates of students, 

and to take effective action to narrow any achievement gaps. They 

have all kinds of flexibility on how to do it, but the law requires 

them to actually do it. 

Let’s not forget the intent of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act when it was passed in 1965. It was to fulfill the finding 

in Brown v. Board of Education that found it is doubtful that any 

child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if denied the 

opportunity of an education, and such an opportunity is a right 

which must be made available to all on equal terms. 

The ESEA addressed that by providing funding for education for 

lower income children with particular focus on areas of high concentration of poverty, and later under No Child Left Behind, we 

added the responsibility that action had to be taken to address 

achievement gaps. 

The Every Student Succeeds Act improves on No Child Left Behind and builds on the progress we have made since Brown in 1954 

and ESEA in 1965. 

We look forward to working with Dr. King and the Department 

of Education to ensure that the opportunity of an education is in 

fact made available to all of our Nation’s children on equal terms, 

and I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman yields back. I thank the gentleman. I want to make just a couple of really quick points. I know 

you have to leave, and we are very, very grateful for the time that 

you have spent with us. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

57 

At several points in the hearing today, some of my colleagues on 

the Democratic side of the aisle, and I think even perhaps you, Dr. 

King, have argued that nothing in ESSA prevents the Secretary 

from implementing the law. 

Let me assure you that on this side of the aisle, we understand 

that is part of your job, to implement this law, but the language 

included in the law now includes explicit instructions about that 

implementation. These instructions include unprecedented restrictions on the Secretary’s authority. That was done on purpose. 

In answering Mr. Byrne’s question earlier, Dr. King, you stated 

that you thought the provision in Section 1111(c) was unclear, but 

the plain reading of the text says ‘‘Consistently underperforming as 

determined by the States,’’ not as determined by the U.S. Department of Education or determined by the Secretary of Education, 

the Acting Secretary of Education, as determined by the States. 

So, the question is not does the Secretary have authority to implement the law. Of course, he does, but that implementation must 

be consistent with the law, which you have said repeatedly that 

you understand and intend to do that. 

You cannot regulate contrary to the law, and you cannot rewrite 

the law, the regulation. You can implement the law as written. 

We wish you good luck in doing that, rest assured we will be 

watching every minute as this goes. We would like to work with 

you and your staff, and have every intention of doing that, and 

speaking of good luck, good luck this afternoon. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. 

Chairman KLINE. There being no further business, the committee 

stands adjourned. 

[Additional submissions by Mr. Scott follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

58 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 6 here 98732.006
59 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 7 here 98732.007
60 

[Additional submissions by Mr. Thompson follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

61 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 8 here 98732.008
62 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 9 here 98732.009
63 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 10 here 98732.010
64 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 11 here 98732.011
65 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 12 here 98732.012
66 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 13 here 98732.013
67 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 14 here 98732.014
68 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 15 here 98732.015
69 

[Additional submissions by Mr. Wilson follow:} 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

70 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 16 here 98732.016
71 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 17 here 98732.017
72 

[Questions submitted for the record and their responses follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

73 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 18 here 98732.018
74 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 19 here 98732.019
75 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 20 here 98732.020
76 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 21 here 98732.021
77 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 22 here 98732.022
78 

[Acting Secretary King’s response to questions submitted for the 

record follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

79 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 23 here 98732.023
80 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 24 here 98732.024
81 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 25 here 98732.025
82 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 26 here 98732.026
83 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 27 here 98732.027
84 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 28 here 98732.028
85 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 29 here 98732.029
86 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 30 here 98732.030
87 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 31 here 98732.031
88 

[Whereupon, at 12:33 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER