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

98–524 PDF 2016

NEXT STEPS FOR K-12 EDUCATION: 

IMPLEMENTING THE PROMISE TO 

RESTORE STATE AND LOCAL CONTROL 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, 

ELEMENTARY, AND SECONDARY EDUCATION 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 

Serial No. 114–38 

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 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, ELEMENTARY, AND 

SECONDARY EDUCATION 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana, Chairman 

Duncan Hunter, California 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Dave Brat, Virginia 

Buddy Carter, Georgia 

Michael D. Bishop, Michigan 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Carlos Curbelo, Florida 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio, 

Ranking Minority Member 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

Mark Takano, California 

Katherine M. Clark, Massachusetts 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on February 10, 2016 ....................................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Rokita, Hon. Todd, Chairman, Subcommittee On Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education ............................................................. 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2 

Fudge, Hon. Marcia, L., Ranking Member, Subcommittee On Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education ............................................. 3 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Almazan, Selene, A., ESQ., Legal Director, Council of Parent Attorneys 

and Advocates, Inc., Towson, MD ................................................................ 17 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 19 

Hofmeister, Joy, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Oklahoma State 

Department of Education, Oklahoma City, OK .......................................... 06 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 09 

Talbert, Kent, D., Attorney at Law, Law Office of Kent D. Talbert, 

PLLC,Washington, D.C. ............................................................................... 27 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 29 

Wilson, Paul, V., Superintendent, Hartselle City Schools, Hartselle, AL ... 13 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 15 

Additional Submissions: 

Ms. Fudge: 

Letter dated January 21, 2016, from The Council of Parent Attorneys 

and Advocates, Inc. ................................................................................ 85 

Chairman Rokita: 

Letter dated February 10, 2016, from a coalition of groups .................. 82 

Scott, Hon. Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Virginia: 

NEAP test .................................................................................................. 72 

Mr. Talbert: 

Supplemental response ............................................................................. 58 

Questions submitted for the record by: 

Bonamici, Hon. Suzanne, a Representative in Congress from the 

state of Oregon ....................................................................................... 97 

Polis, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the state of 

Colorado .................................................................................................. 99 

Response to questions submitted for the record: 

Ms. Almazan ..............................................................................................44, 65 

Mr. Wilson ................................................................................................. 101 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(1) 

NEXT STEPS FOR K-12 EDUCATION: 

IMPLEMENTING THE PROMISE 

TO RESTORE STATE AND LOCAL CONTROL 

Wednesday, February 10, 2016 

House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and 

Secondary Education, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in Room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Todd Rokita [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Rokita, Thompson, Carter, Grothman, 

Russell, Fudge, Davis, Bonamici, and Clark. 

Also Present: Representatives Kline, Scott, and Polis. 

Staff Present: Lauren Aronson, Press Secretary; Janelle Belland, 

Coalitions and Members Services Coordinator; 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; 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; Kiara 

Pesante, Minority Communications Director; Saloni Sharma, Minority Press Assistant; Michael Taylor, Minority Education Policy 

Fellow; and Arika Trim, Minority Press Secretary. 

Chairman ROKITA. Good morning. A quorum being present, the 

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary 

Education will come to order. 

I want to welcome everyone to the first subcommittee hearing of 

the new year. After replacing No Child Left Behind at the end of 

2015, I think it’s only fitting to kick off 2016 with a conversation 

about what happens next. 

After years of flawed policies and Federal intrusions into the Nation’s classrooms, Congress passed the Every Student Succeeds Act 

based on the principle that responsibility of K-12 education must 

be returned to State and local leaders. The new law repeals onerCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

2 

ous Federal requirements and ensures important decisions that affect education, like standards, accountability, school improvement, 

are made by State and local leaders, not Washington bureaucrats. 

That’s why the Wall Street Journal editorial board described the 

legislation as, quote, ‘‘the largest devolution of power to the States 

in a quarter-century,’’ unquote, and why the National Governors 

Association lauded the new law as a, quote, ‘‘historic moment in ensuring children’s future success in the Nation’s schools,’’ unquote. 

There’s no question that replacing No Child Left Behind was an 

important achievement, one that will improve K-12 education for 

students and families. But our work is far from finished; in fact, 

it’s just beginning. Over the last several years, the administration 

has routinely taken a top-down approach to education, imposing on 

States and school districts a backdoor agenda that has sparked bipartisan opposition and harmed education reform efforts. 

The passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act puts States and 

school districts back in charge of education and includes more than 

50 pages of provisions to keep the Department of Education in 

check. For example, the law protects the right of State and local 

leaders to determine what standards, assessments, and curriculum 

are best for their students and ensures State and local leaders are 

responsible for accountability in school improvement. 

Now, moving forward, it’s going to be our collective responsibility 

to hold the Department of Education accountable for how it implements the law. This is what Congress does and is supposed to do. 

Congress promised to restore State and local control over K-12 education, and now it’s our job to ensure that promise is kept. 

Hearing from you, the very leaders we want to empower, is a 

critical part of that effort. What role do State and local leaders play 

in implementing the law is a question. What challenges do you anticipate State and school districts may face is another question. 

How can the Department provide the increased flexibility and autonomy State and local leaders were promised and now expect? 

Today’s conversation is one of many steps we plan to take to ensure the Department upholds the letter and spirit of the law that 

we passed and that the President signed, and answers to these 

questions will inform our efforts moving forward. It’s my firm belief 

that when the Every Student Succeeds Act is implemented as Congress intended, parents, teachers, and State and local leaders will 

be empowered to deliver the excellent education, in fact, every child 

deserves. 

With that, again, I welcome everybody and will yield to Ranking 

Member Fudge for her opening remarks. 

[The statement of Chairman Rokita follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Todd Rokita, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education 

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our first subcommittee hearing of the 

New Year. After replacing No Child Left Behind at the end of 2015, it’s only fitting 

to kick off 2016 with a conversation about what happens next. 

After years of flawed policies and federal intrusions into the nation’s classrooms, 

Congress passed the Every Student Succeeds Act based on the principle that responsibility of K–12 education must be returned to state and local leaders. The new law 

repeals onerous federal requirements and ensures important decisions affecting education—like standards, accountability, and school improvement—are made by state 

and local leaders, not Washington bureaucrats. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

3 

That’s why the Wall Street Journal editorial board described the legislation as 

‘‘the largest devolution of power to the states in a quarter century’’ and why the 

National Governors’ Association lauded the new law as ‘‘an historic moment in ensuring children’s future success in the nation’s schools.’’ 

There is no question that replacing No Child Left Behind was an important 

achievement, one that will improve K–12 education for students and families. But 

our work is far from finished. In fact, it is just beginning. 

Over the last several years, this administration has routinely taken a top-down 

approach to education, imposing on states and school districts a backdoor agenda 

that has sparked bipartisan opposition and harmed education reform efforts. 

The passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act puts states and school districts 

back in charge of education, and includes more than 50 pages of provisions to keep 

the Department of Education in check. For example, the law protects the right of 

state and local leaders to determine what standards, assessments, and curriculum 

are best for their students, and ensures state and local leaders are responsible for 

accountability and school improvement. 

Moving forward, it’s our responsibility to hold the Department of Education accountable for how it implements the law. Congress promised to restore state and 

local control over K–12 education, and now it’s our job to ensure that promise is 

kept. Hearing from you—the very leaders we want to empower—is a critical part 

of that effort. What do you expect from the new law? What role do state and local 

leaders play in implementing the law? What challenges do you anticipate states and 

school districts may face? How can the department provide the increased flexibility 

and autonomy state and local leaders were promised? 

Today’s conversation is one of many steps we plan to take to ensure the department upholds the letter and spirit of the law, and answers to these questions will 

inform our efforts moving forward. It is my firm belief that when the Every Student 

Succeeds Act is implemented as Congress intended, teachers and state and local 

leaders will be empowered to deliver the excellent education every child deserves. 

With that, I will yield to Ranking Member Fudge for her opening remarks. 

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

And thank you all for being here this morning. 

I’m pleased to be here to discuss the implementation of the Every 

Student Succeeds Act. I do believe that this bipartisan law will fulfill the Elementary and Secondary Education Act’s promise to promote and protect the right to educational opportunity for all of the 

Nation’s most vulnerable children. 

We worked across the aisle to write this law over many months 

and years, and I am pleased with the role House Democrats played 

to strengthen the final conference report and secure the President’s 

signature. I look forward to working with you, the administration, 

and with stakeholders to preserve the law’s civil rights legacy during implementation. 

The Every Student Succeeds Act provides the much-needed flexibility absent in No Child Left Behind’s one-size-fits-all requirements but maintains critical Federal protections to ensure that 

every child has access to a quality education. This is particularly 

important for students of color, English language learners, students 

with disabilities, and low-income students, who disproportionately 

face barriers to a quality education that prepares them for college 

and a career. 

Under ESSA, States and local school districts will have the flexibility to design multi-measure accountability systems, make important decisions about standards and assessments, and ensure that 

school intervention and support strategies are improving outcomes 

for students. 

But with new flexibility comes responsibility. States and school 

districts will need to implement ESSA in a way that continues its 

focus on meeting the needs of our Nation’s most at-risk students. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

4 

The work will not be easy. The voices of our communities will be 

vital in determining the parameters of implementation. Parents, 

teachers, and students will need to elevate their voices and experiences at school board meetings and State capitals across the country. State and local leaders will need to fight for strong, studentfocused policies. And the U.S. Department of Education will need 

to ensure that States are putting children’s needs first. 

As ESSA is implemented, stakeholder input will continue to be 

important. I was pleased to see that 370 organizations and individuals provided recommendations to the U.S. Department of Education regarding the regulatory process. Many stakeholders asked 

for additional clarity through regulations on issues including, but 

not limited to, defining vague terms, setting parameters, and providing options to fulfill legal requirements in ESSA. 

Many stakeholders also requested a timeline to help States and 

school districts plan for the transition. I believe such a timeline is 

a critical component of the process. 

Federal agencies are required to faithfully implement the law. I 

am pleased that the U.S. Department of Education has started the 

process of issuing regulations and guidance to assist States and 

school districts with implementing the Every Student Succeeds Act. 

States and school districts need clarity, rules, and oversight 

throughout the implementation process to ensure that the law fulfills ESSA’s promise. While some things like annual assessments 

and disaggregated data will remain the same, there will be many 

new requirements, and the Federal guidance will empower States 

to hit the ground running. 

I look forward to hearing about the panel’s experiences and their 

recommendations for ensuring a smooth and successful transition 

in a way that preserves the critical Federal role in promoting educational equity. 

I yield back. 

[The statement of Ms. Fudge follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Marcia L. Fudge, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education 

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here today to discuss the implementation of 

the Every Student Succeeds Act. I believe this bipartisan law will fulfill the Elementary and Secondary Education Act’s promise to promote and protect the right to educational opportunity for our nation’s most vulnerable children. 

We worked across the aisle to write this law over many months and years, and 

I am pleased with the role House Democrats played to strengthen the final conference report and secure the President’s signature. 

I look forward to working with you, the Administration, and with stakeholders to 

preserve the law’s civil rights legacy during implementation. 

The Every Student Succeeds Act provides the much needed flexibility absent in 

No Child Left Behind’s one-size-fits-all requirements, but maintains critical federal 

protections to ensure that every child has access to a quality education. This is particularly important for students of color, English language learners, students with 

disabilities, and low-income students, who disproportionately face barriers to a quality education that prepares them for college and a career. 

Under ESSA, states and local school districts will have new flexibility to design 

multi-measure accountability systems, make important decisions about standards 

and assessments, and ensure that school intervention and support strategies are improving outcomes for students. But with new flexibility comes responsibility. States 

and school districts will need to implement ESSA in a way that continues its focus 

on meeting the needs of our nation’s most at-risk students. 

The work will not be easy. The voices of our communities will be vital in determining the parameters of implementation. Parents, teachers, and students will need 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

5 

to elevate their voices and experiences at school board meetings and state capitols 

across the country. State and local leaders will need to fight for strong student focused policies. And the US Department of Education will need to ensure that states 

are putting children’s needs first. 

As ESSA is implemented, stakeholder input will continue to be important. I was 

pleased to see that 370 organizations and individuals provided recommendations to 

the US Department of Education regarding the regulatory process. Many stakeholders asked for additional clarity through regulations, on issues including, but not 

limited to, defining vague terms, setting parameters, and providing options to fulfill 

legal requirements in ESSA. Many stakeholders also requested a timeline to help 

states and school districts plan for the transition. I believe such a timeline is a critical component of the process. 

Federal agencies are required to faithfully implement the law. I am pleased that 

the US Department of Education has started the process of issuing regulations and 

guidance to assist states and school districts with implementing the Every Student 

Succeeds Act. 

States and school districts need clarity, rules, and oversight throughout the implementation process, to ensure that the law fulfills ESSA’s promise. While some 

things—like annual assessments and disaggregated data—will remain the same, 

there will be many new requirements, and federal guidance will empower states to 

hit the ground running. 

I look forward to hearing about the panel’s experiences and their recommendations for ensuring a smooth and successful transition in a way that preserves the 

critical federal role in promoting educational equity. 

Chairman ROKITA. I thank the gentlelady. 

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 the 14 days to allow such statements and other extraneous material in reference during the hearing to be submitted 

for the official hearing record. 

I will now turn to the introduction of our distinguished witnesses. And I ask Mr. Russell of Oklahoma to introduce our first 

witness. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It’s my honor this morning to welcome to the committee the 

State superintendent of public instruction for the great State of 

Oklahoma, Ms. Joy Hofmeister, a friend. 

She comes with a wealth of experience and background not only 

as a public schoolteacher but also as a small-business owner. She 

served on the State Board of Education. She has worked tirelessly, 

getting out in the school districts to listen to what the standards 

concerns are, the importance of having State control for these 

standards. 

And it is my honor to welcome her to this committee this morning. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROKITA. I thank the gentleman. 

Welcome. 

I’ll continue with introductions. 

Dr. Paul ′′Vic′′ Wilson serves as the superintendent for the 

Hartselle City Board of Education, in Hartselle, Alabama. Previous 

to serving as superintendent, Dr. Wilson was a high school principal at Mountain Brook High School. 

Ms. Selene Almazan serves as legal director for the Council of 

Parent Attorneys and Advocates, COPAA, in Towson, Maryland. 

For the last 20 years, Ms. Almazan has represented parents in special education matters, with a primary focus on least restrictive enCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

6 

vironment issues, individualized education plan team meetings, 

State complaint proceedings, mediations, due process hearings, suspension and expulsion proceedings, and Federal court proceedings. 

Welcome. 

Mr. Kent Talbert serves as an attorney in Washington, D.C., 

where he provides advice on education law and policy, covering preK through postsecondary education issues. In addition, Mr. Talbert 

served as the general counsel for the U.S. Department of Education 

from 2006 to 2009 and also served with this committee. 

Welcome, all. 

I will now ask our witnesses to stand and raise your right hand. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are 

about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth? 

Chairman ROKITA. Let the record reflect witnesses answered in 

the affirmative. 

And you may be seated. 

Before I recognize you to provide your testimony, let me briefly 

explain our lighting system. You each have 5 minutes to present 

your testimony. When you begin, the light in front of you will be 

green. When 1 minute is left, the light will turn yellow. And when 

your time is expired, it will be red. At that point, I’ll ask you to 

wrap up your remarks as best as you are able. 

And, by the way, this is a reminder for us up here, as well, not 

just you all. Members then will each have 5 minutes to ask questions. 

And, with that, Ms. Hofmeister, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF JOY HOFMEISTER, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, OKLAHOMA STATE DEPARTMENT OF 

EDUCATION, OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 

Ms. HOFMEISTER. Well, thank you very much. 

Chairman Kline, thank you. Thank you, Chairman Rokita, Ranking Member Fudge, as well as the introduction from my Congressman, Congressman Russell, and members of the committee, for the 

opportunity to testify today. 

And congratulations on the successful passage of Every Student 

Succeeds Act. As Oklahoma State superintendent, I embrace the 

challenge to successfully implement this important new law. My 

goal is to ensure all Oklahoma’s students have access to a highquality education. 

To do so, we have set out on an ambitious path to focus on early 

childhood foundations in literacy, to close achievement gaps and 

opportunity gaps, and to increase the number of high school graduates fully prepared for the challenges of a postsecondary education or the workforce. Passage of this new law could not have 

come at a better time to give us the flexibility and authority needed 

to achieve these goals. 

Prior to the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act, Oklahoma struggled to realize the full potential of every child. Why? 

While we set ambitious goals and created meaningful programs to 

meet those goals, we faced a prescriptive Federal law that offered 

neither the space nor the flexibility to do what we needed to do on 

behalf of kids. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

7 

Today, however, my fellow State chiefs and I look forward to 

both the flexibility and stability of this new law so we can create 

accountability systems, school-level interventions, and educator 

evaluation and support frameworks to achieve the goals we have 

set for all students in our States. 

This law signals a new era of Federal policy in education, one 

that lets those at the State and local levels, those closest to the 

classrooms, focus their efforts on reaching the best outcomes for all 

students while still holding us accountable for results for kids. 

States like Oklahoma will only be able to achieve the full promise of this new law if the Federal Government continues to hold 

true to the spirit of the law, if we truly are allowed to innovate, 

free from regulations and guidelines that change the intent of this 

body. Striking the balance between guidance to the States and ensuring that States are not overly prescribed is what State leaders 

need. 

I realize that some regulation and guidance are necessary as 

States transition to the new law. For example, I know States will 

welcome clarification on such issues as the timeline for implementation. 

And I want to recognize the U.S. Department of Education already, as they have taken steps to provide some clarity on key 

issues, such as the recent guidance on how States can transition 

away from highly qualified teacher regulations. I applaud these 

positive signs from the Department and appreciate their efforts to 

leave these necessary decisions up to States and local communities. 

Under No Child Left Behind, States quickly realized that academic progress was stalling under an outdated law. We first noticed the lag in our accountability systems. Because these systems 

relied solely on the number of kids passing one test each year, we 

could not accurately identify all schools in need of improvement. 

Moreover, once schools were identified, we saw that what may 

work for school improvement in Oklahoma City or in Tulsa was not 

the same as what was needed or might work in Guymon or 

Muskogee. 

Oklahoma has a new day, and we know that now, under the new 

Every Student Succeeds Act, Oklahoma plans to build on the 

progress we made through our ESEA flexibility waiver to create a 

better system for all kids—an accountability system that better 

identifies schools and what assistance they need; more targeted 

interventions that recognize not every student or community is the 

same; and complete authority to craft an evaluation and support 

system that truly evaluates and supports Oklahoma teachers 

amidst the reality of a historic teacher shortage. 

Let me leave you with this final thought. States are not only 

ready but we are willing and able to lead under this new law. We 

have proven it time and time again, as we have raised academic 

standards for every child, created better assessments to meet individual needs, and sought additional flexibility to do what is best for 

all kids in our States. 

What we need today is for Congress and the U.S. Department of 

Education to continue to recognize our leadership as we work with 

parents, teachers, and key stakeholders to transition to this new 

law. Future regulation should focus on providing States with guidCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

8 

ance, clarification, and support but not prescription and compliance. 

I look forward to this opportunity to focus on what needs to be 

done to give every Oklahoma child a first-rate education. Under 

this new law, I now see the Federal Government as a partner in 

this effort, not a barrier. I hope we can work together to keep it 

that way. 

Thank you, and I’m available for answering any questions you 

may have at the appropriate time. 

[The statement of Ms. Hofmeister follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

9 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 1 here 98524.001
10 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 2 here 98524.002
11 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 3 here 98524.003
12 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 4 here 98524.004
13 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you. 

Dr. Wilson, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF PAUL ‘‘VIC’’ WILSON, SUPERINTENDENT, 

HARTSELLE CITY SCHOOLS, HARTSELLE, ALABAMA 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. Good morning. Thank you for allowing 

me to speak to you about the reauthorization of the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act, which resulted in the passage of the 

Every Student Succeeds Act. 

My name is Vic Wilson, superintendent of Hartselle City Schools, 

and I come to you today representing AASA, The School Superintendents Association; Schools Superintendents of Alabama; and 

the Hartselle City Schools. 

ESSA signifies a wonderful step in the right direction to return 

autonomy and decision-making to the State and local level. Just as 

former Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill observed all politics is 

local, I contend that all education is local, as well, and best delivered and administered at the local level by educational professionals and stakeholders who know and understand the intricacies 

of not only local politics but local education. 

Certainly a role exists for the United States Education Department, a role focused on strengthening and supporting public 

schools by equitably applying broad flexibility to States and local 

districts in their efforts to meet the needs of the stakeholders 

under their purview. ESSA represents the first time in 15 years 

that State and local education agencies can demonstrate what they 

can do to support student learning without Federal overreach. 

Throughout the United States, the Nation’s 14,000 public school 

superintendents are charged with meeting and exceeding expectations of student achievement and learning for stakeholders at the 

local level. What works in Alabama might not work and might be 

slightly different from what works in Minnesota. Likewise, what 

works in Hartselle, Alabama, might differ slightly what from what 

works in Florence, Alabama, or Arley, Alabama. ESSA provides a 

new opportunity for each of those leaders who craft and implement 

customized education for learners in their district. 

In Hartselle City Schools, we strive to meet the needs of students 

who want to be a rocket scientist, the student who wants to be a 

doctor, the student who wants to be a welder, the student who 

wants to work in public service, or the student who really doesn’t 

know what he or she wants to be at that time, and perhaps even 

the student who wants to become a teacher. 

Thanks to the flexibility given to us by the Alabama State Department of Education and now ESSA, we are able to do this by 

collaborating, as necessary, with local entities and other school systems across the State. We’re even able to converse and collaborate 

with leaders across the Nation to see how these ideas are working 

in one region of the country and how they might be applied in our 

area. This works best on an organic level via networking conducted 

by local leaders instead of top-down mandates, and ESSA allows 

and encourages this type of collaborative dialogue. 

Last week, Superintendent Bill Hopkins, Superintendent Ed 

Nichols, and I met in Montgomery with superintendents across our 

State at our legislative conference. While all of three of us reside 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

14 

in Morgan County, we each have differences with which we must 

deal on a daily basis. Without the ability to implement guidelines 

that best fit the needs of our respective districts’ students, we 

would be forced to work with round holes and square pegs far too 

often. 

Every leader needs the flexibility to deal with those situations 

that are unique to their district in a manner that best meets the 

need. Superintendent Janet Womack will deal with issues in Florence City differently than Ed, Bill, or I will, and rightly so. ESSA 

is a huge step in this direction and will serve leaders as they strive 

to lead all learners up the stairs of success. 

When it comes to Federal regulations and ESSA, less is more. I 

strongly encourage the USED to incorporate input and feedback 

from stakeholders before adding regulations that could hamper 

their State and local decision-making. 

In Alabama, Dr. Bice implemented PLAN 2020 that has greatly 

increased local control and had resulted in great growth across our 

State. Our graduation rates are going up. Our dropout rates and 

recidivism rates are going down. 

For example, by reexamining rules and regulations that tie seat 

time to credit-bearing courses or regulations that ignore competency-based accountability systems, the United States Education 

Department can empower school districts to think outside the box 

and implement procedures and policies that best meet the needs of 

schools and the students they serve. 

Hartselle City Schools, the SSA and the AASA, and other agencies concur about the importance of implementing ESSA in a manner that reflects the expanded authority and flexibility now granted 

to the experts at the State and local level. ESSA makes it clear 

that Congress’ intent is the State should be solely responsible for 

decisions regarding accountability, standards, teachers, and other 

factors. Essentially, ESSA is a codification of reality that one size 

does not fit all and there truly is not one best model that will serve 

all students and schools. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak to you today and 

submit these comments. My goal today has been to highlight the 

importance of ensuring the State and local education agencies have 

local control when deciding among the myriad options available in 

delivering quality instruction and meeting the needs of all the students. 

By allowing this broad flexibility to the States and local agencies, 

ESSA will go a long way in transforming public education at the 

local and State level and thereby propelling public education forward nationally. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Wilson follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

15 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 5 here 98524.005
16 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 6 here 98524.006
17 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you, sir. 

Ms. Almazan, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF SELENE A. ALMAZAN, ESQ., LEGAL DIRECTOR, 

COUNCIL OF PARENT ATTORNEYS AND ADVOCATES, INC., 

TOWSON, MARYLAND 

Ms. ALMAZAN. Thank you. 

Good morning, Chairman Kline, Chairman Rokita, Ranking 

Member Scott and Ranking Member Fudge, and members of the 

committee. 

I am Selene Almazan, legal director of the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, a national nonprofit whose mission is to 

protect the civil rights of 6.4 million children with disabilities attending our Nation’s public schools. I am also a parent to three 

children. Two of my children have disabilities and attended Maryland public schools. 

I understand the impact of high expectations for students with 

disabilities and students of color through the lives of my clients 

and know firsthand the impact of high expectations for my own 

children. 

A client of mine, Georgia, now age 12, was placed in a segregated 

classroom with no access to high-quality instruction. She’s AfricanAmerican. Georgia has a rare genetic condition that impacts her in 

many ways but does not impact her desire to learn. We worked to 

have her moved to general education classrooms. With the right 

supports and access to trained teachers and high expectations, she 

flourished. 

Georgia is not alone in her quest. The need to demand high expectations in order to have the opportunity to achieve has a profound impact on the lives of many students and their families, my 

own included. 

Over the past several years, COPAA has worked with disabilities, civil rights, and business communities to ensure that ESEA, 

now known as the ESSA, fully supports black, Hispanic, low-income, English learners, and students with disabilities to succeed. 

Key to our collective support has been that the Secretary of Education approves plans and ensures State implementation and that 

States take action when schools and districts fail to meet their obligations; includes annual statewide assessments; has a strict statewide participation cap at 1 percent of all students by subject on the 

use of alternate assessments; includes a requirement to assess at 

least 95 percent of all students; includes statewide accountability 

systems with achievement and graduation goals; and requires action when any group of students consistently underperforms. 

My testimony today intends to accomplish two priorities. 

Priority number one: The role of the Department of Education is 

vital in the implementation of ESSA. While section 1111(e) of 

ESSA includes specific limited restrictions on Federal prescription, 

COPAA and its civil rights coalition partners are confident that the 

provisions therein are specific and limited enough as to not erode 

the regulatory authority of the Secretary. 

ESSA acknowledges that regulations will be promulgated, and, in 

so doing, the Secretary will use regulations that protect the rights 

of all children without exceeding the scope of and without being inCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

18 

consistent with the statute. It is clear that the U.S. Department of 

Education has the correct regulatory authority to develop recommendations for implementation. In its simplest form, regulation 

allocates responsibility to implement statutory law. 

On priority two, COPAA takes seriously the impact Title I implementation has on students. We understand States will have more 

discretion in carrying out ESSA. However, COPAA, along with our 

partners in the business, civil rights, and disability community, 

have and will work to prevent efforts to water down expectations, 

avoid full transparency, diminish the importance of honest measures, or delay interventions when any group of students is struggling. 

COPAA submitted comprehensive recommendations to the Secretary on ESSA Title I. We believe it is imperative that the Secretary exercise full legal authority to issue regulations on key Title 

I provisions, including: to clarify and define new statutory terms 

and provide parameters on the n-size to protect the integrity of accountability and assessment systems; specify that 95-percent participation requirement is included in accountability; establish the 

statutory State cap at 1 percent of all students for use in alternate 

assessments; recognize district flexibility and create strict criteria 

for any State waiver; assure State and district-led evidence-based 

interventions systems are focused on raising achievement and are 

initiated whenever any school is underperforming for all students 

or for any student group. 

The ESSA is our Nation’s most important civil rights law. While 

ESSA does include new flexibility, it also includes bright-line requirements that the civil rights and business community help support. The Department must now provide clarifying rules so States 

can implement the law in a way that honors the purpose of the bill 

but also holds States accountable for access to over 15 billion dollars in Federal funds. Federal funds are still conditional through 

compliance with the law, and there’s agreement that the Secretary 

has the authority to define, monitor, and enforce the law. 

Student rights and educational opportunity must not be compromised by politics that seek to ignore the foundational tenet of 

administrative law. We want to help States and districts create 

new opportunities to accelerate student progress for our most vulnerable groups of children. 

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today and look forward to your questions. Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Almazan follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

19 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 7 here 98524.007
20 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 8 here 98524.008
21 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 9 here 98524.009
22 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 10 here 98524.010
23 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 11 here 98524.011
24 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 12 here 98524.012
25 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 13 here 98524.013
26 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 14 here 98524.014
27 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you. 

Mr. Talbert, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF KENT D. TALBERT, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LAW 

OFFICE OF KENT D. TALBERT, PLLC, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. TALBERT. Chairman Rokita, Ranking Member Fudge, Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Scott, members of the committee, it’s 

a pleasure to be here to present testimony on implementation of 

the Every Student Succeeds Act. 

In my past role as general counsel, one of my tasks was to advise 

the Secretary of Education on the contours of newly enacted laws— 

in other words, what are the boundaries or the scope of the text. 

This is a lot like a football field. The field has boundaries within 

which the game is played. And so, too, any new law must be interpreted within the confines of the text. 

The process of advising the Secretary necessarily involves making judgments about whether proposed regulatory actions or guidance or other implementation decisions are within the scope of the 

words of the statute. This generally involves taking a close look at 

the particular text as well as looking at the text in light of the 

whole. 

One question that sometimes arises is what happens if a regulation is drafted in a manner that’s outside the scope of the text. The 

answer is a department or agency may risk a potential lawsuit, 

and so there’s potential that the regulation could be set aside by 

a court. Or, in the case of guidance, there’s a risk that it could be 

declared legislative rule—in effect, a regulation. And in this latter 

case, a court may require a department or agency to go back and 

do notice-and-comment rulemaking. 

And so it’s within this context that I present my testimony. I 

have three things that I’ll focus on. The first is the law’s broad 

shift in authority to States and school districts. Secondly, I’ll share 

a few thoughts on implementation. And, third, I’ll conclude with a 

brief discussion of some of the prohibitions in Title VIII of the law. 

With respect to the shift in authority to States and school districts, without question, the new law provides States with the authority to design accountability systems from the ground up. In effect, the States become the design engineers operating within broad 

Federal guidelines, and then they proceed to build these systems. 

In addition, the law’s shift in authority can be seen in the multiple affirmations of the State-level direction over standards and 

assessments and in the prohibitions that are placed upon the Federal Government’s involvement in standards, assessments, and curriculum. 

I’ll talk about some of those prohibitions in a little more detail 

in a few minutes, but for now I would note that the new law does 

prohibit the Federal Government from mandating, directing, or requiring Common Core State standards as well as any other assessments aligned to such standards. 

Similarly, no funds may be used for developing, incentivizing, administering, and so forth of any federally sponsored national test 

unless it’s expressly authorized in the law. For example, NAEP 

would be one of those that’s expressly authorized in the law. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

28 

A third aspect of the shift to States and school districts can be 

found in the waiver authority. New language was added to section 

8401 to make clear that the Federal Government may not disapprove a waiver request based on conditions that are outside the 

scope of the waiver that’s requested, nor may the Secretary require 

as a condition of waiver approval an applicant to use Common Core 

standards or use specific assessments, such as those aligned to the 

Common Core, nor include in or delete from a waiver request specific elements of State academic standards assessments, accountability systems, or teacher evaluation systems. 

Turning now to implementation, were I providing advice to those 

charged with implementation, I would note the primary importance 

of the text in any interpretive challenge. Ultimately, fidelity to the 

text will prove critical in any legal dispute. And so, in reading the 

text of the Every Student Succeeds Act, one should be aware of and 

distinguish between things such as purpose statements, express 

program requirements, rules of construction, findings, as well as 

sense of the Congress provisions. 

Likewise, in thinking through implementation, I want you to be 

apprised of the various cannons of construction. Three examples of 

rules of construction are the plain meaning rule, the rule of nonretroactivity, and the harmonization of disparate text to the extent 

you can harmonize different provisions. One should also give attention to the words that are used, ‘‘shall’’ versus ‘‘may,’’ and then 

such things as grammar and punctuation. 

Separate and apart from consideration of the text is the legislative history that’s involved. In order to provide as complete a picture as possible to senior officers and so forth, I would recommend 

that they carefully review, prior to implementation and rulemaking, all the relevant parts of committee reports, floor debates, 

conference reports, and the like. They are particularly helpful in 

understanding the broader background and context of the law. 

With respect to Title VIII’s general provisions, and to conclude, 

I would advise careful attention to these. They often deal with discrete, sometimes controversial topics. They include prohibitions, 

limitations, and commentary on a host of issues. Some have been 

in the law for years, others are new, others are modified. Most are 

generally straightforward and unequivocal. 

For example, officers or employees of the Federal Government, 

whether through grant, contract, or cooperative agreement, are prohibited from mandating, directing, and controlling, so forth, the 

school district or schools’ programs of instructions, standards, assessments, and the like. This also includes prohibitions relating to 

the Common Core standards. And States cannot be penalized for 

withdrawing from the Common Core. 

Chairman ROKITA. Mr. Talbert, I need to cut you off. Five minutes is up, but I’m sure we’ll come back to your testimony in the 

questions. So thank you very much. 

Mr. TALBERT. Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Talbert follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

29 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 15 here 98524.015
30 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 16 here 98524.016
31 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 17 here 98524.017
32 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 18 here 98524.018
33 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 19 here 98524.019
34 

Chairman ROKITA. I thank all the witnesses. 

As I often do, I’m going to defer my questions to the end and recognize other members of the committee first, first and foremost 

being the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Kline from Minnesota, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks to the witnesses for being here. 

We’re very excited and interested to follow the implementation of 

ESSA. As all of you know, it was years in the making. There was 

bipartisan agreement that we wanted to have a devolution of power 

from the Federal Government back to States and local governments. 

Our concern has been, my concern has been, as we go into implementation, that there may be misinterpretations Mr. Talbert was 

just talking about. It is possible that some States will end up with 

No Child Left Behind light. I certainly hope that doesn’t happen. 

But it was my belief, and I think in a bipartisan way, that those 

were choices that these States and local governments would be 

making. 

One of the things that we have been hearing some about, besides 

the assertion of the former Secretary of Education that he has better lawyers than we do—I’m not sure that I agree with that. In 

fact, I would disagree with that. 

But there has been a lot of noise that the new law, ESSA, in requiring that standards be aligned to college entrance requirements, 

that there is some noise that the Federal Department of Education 

has implied that this will mean college- and career-ready as defined in the Race to the Top grant program. And around the country, many people see that—and I’ve already heard this many 

times—that that’s sort of code for Common Core State standards. 

That’s certainly not my intent nor, I think, our intent in a bipartisan way. 

But I want to go to Ms. Hofmeister, if I could, because I’m looking at some notes here in front of me. We understand that Oklahoma has recently gone through a rewrite of its academic standards, in consultation with its higher education system, that has not 

resulted in Oklahoma adopting the Common Core. 

Can you walk us through what you did and how that works and 

how it might apply elsewhere? 

Ms. HOFMEISTER. Yes, sir. Thank you, Chairman. 

We certainly started out with a process where we wanted to 

make certain that our students would be competitive and that they 

would be ready for their next steps in learning, whether that’s at 

the end of the grade level or at the end of their high school career, 

ready to take those next steps. And we do believe that there is 

need for that. 

What we did in Oklahoma was we partnered together at each 

grade band level, starting with early childhood because we have 

pre-K. This is a first time we have vertically aligned pre-K through 

12th-grade standards, and we partnered with counterpart in higher 

education, using subject matter experts as well as those familiar 

with pedagogy of teaching that subject. And we’re working together, a combined effort on the writing teams. So we had co-chairs 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

35 

in math and English language arts that reflected both the common 

education system as well as higher education. 

And that partnership was one that has been successful. Just earlier, on the first day of this month, we submitted those standards 

that included the input of hundreds of Oklahoma teachers and 

those members in higher ed, as well. 

Mr. KLINE. So just to underscore this, because I’m afraid we’re 

going to be hearing this again and again and again, you have gone 

through the rewrite of your academic standards in the collaborative 

way you’ve just described, and you ended up with standards that 

are not the Common Core. Is that correct? 

Ms. HOFMEISTER. Absolutely, they are not Common Core. We -- 

Mr. KLINE. Nor—excuse me—nor did you feel compelled to make 

them Common Core. 

Ms. HOFMEISTER. That is correct. And we are a State who lost 

our waiver because we repealed Common Core and had to go 

through efforts to demonstrate that we had rigorous standards. 

And that was certified by our higher ed board of regents. Then we 

got to work writing the standards that Oklahoma needs for Oklahoma students. 

Mr. KLINE. Perfect. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROKITA. The gentleman yields back. 

Ranking Member Scott, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Hofmeister, it’s my understanding that Oklahoma now has 

only three subgroups for performance and two for graduation. The 

subgroups that we expect to be evaluating would include ethnicity, 

English as a second language, disability, and low-income. Will you 

be assessing students on all four subgroups, in compliance with the 

law? 

Ms. HOFMEISTER. Yes. And thank you, Congressman. 

We do believe—and I have been in office for a year and have 

been critical of the particular accountability system that we have. 

It is actually one that was granted to us under a waiver. But it 

does mask the performance of our subgroup population. This is an 

area of concern for me. 

It’s also an area that I think needs to have a greater exposure 

at the local level so that they can make the kinds of strategic plans 

to address the needs of those who are not performing to their full 

promise and potential in those subgroups. So, yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

And back to the question that the chairman asked about Common Core, you set the standards, but are the standards—if a student achieves the standards, will they be eligible for entrance in a 

State college? 

Ms. HOFMEISTER. That is very important. Thank you, Congressman. 

We want to be certain that students finish graduation and a diploma has great value and meaning, and a meaning that means 

they are able to begin with the credit-bearing coursework in a university or college or community college or that they are ready to 

start work or continue work with credentialing in the industry and 

workforce area. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

36 

So this is something that we have great work to do in working 

to really eliminate and shrink the remediation gap that exists right 

now. And I do believe that we are on our way. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Ms. Almazan, what authority does the Federal Government have 

under the bill if a State and local education system fails to graduate the requisite percentage of students or they fail to achieve? 

What authority does the Federal Government have to come in and 

do something? 

Ms. ALMAZAN. Well, we believe that the Federal authority is 

there in section 1111(e) of the ESSA. And it is well-established 

under administrative law that the executive branch does have the 

authority to come in and help implement and interpret statutes 

and laws that have been promulgated. They have the authority to 

clarify as well as interpret and help to implement, because the executive branch does have the expertise in implementation. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

And, Ms. Hofmeister, what should be done if a school fails to 

achieve, say, on graduation rates? What kind of response should 

there be on a State and local basis for a school that’s not achieving 

on graduation rates? 

Ms. HOFMEISTER. Thank you, Congressman. 

We need to have very good information so people can make good 

decisions. And some of those decisions are on how to address needs, 

but you don’t have an opportunity to do that if you don’t have that 

good information. 

So, in our current situation, we had an accountability system 

that really masks that. That was approved by the Department of 

Education. And what we found was you could earn a letter grade 

of an A or a B and still have a graduation rate in your school of 

less than 67 percent. That’s unacceptable. That’s a problem. So we 

want to address that, and we now have a new way. 

Mr. SCOTT. What kind of initiatives would take place once you’ve 

unmasked the problem? One of the things that we want to do, both 

to assess but then do something? What kinds of things can be done 

to improve the graduation rate? 

Ms. HOFMEISTER. Well, one example would be, first of all, I believe you have to start by building capacity within leaders. We 

can’t all do it at the classroom level from the State. I believe that 

those closest to the problem have the best hope of solving it, and 

it involves bringing in strong leadership and building that. 

I can give you an example of a school district or school, McLain 

High School, that was part of turnaround models of coming in and 

starting over with new people and in a 25-year period had 18 new 

principals. That is a very drastic approach that is not working 

when you have 25 years later you’re in the same boat. 

We’ve got to plug stakeholders in to solving things. And they’ve 

got to be a part of it. It’s about building capacity. 

And, truly, the State has authority, but our authority needs to 

be in equipping and supporting. And then we will do whatever it 

takes to make certain that students are not left behind and that 

they have an opportunity—all kids must have, really, access to that 

high-quality education. But it starts with building capacity at the 

local level. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

37 

Chairman ROKITA. The gentleman’s time has expired. I thank 

the gentleman. 

The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes, Mr. 

Carter. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank each of you for being here today. We appreciate what 

you’re doing. What you’re doing for our students is extremely important. 

Ms. Hofmeister, let me start with you. You have the title of superintendent of public instruction for the Oklahoma State Department of Education. So I’m assuming that you’ve seen different 

frameworks and different styles across the State. 

I could not help but sense in your opening statement that you 

question somewhat the devolution of power that we feel like we’ve 

done here at the Federal level. I don’t know if that was just my 

sense or if that’s what you were trying to portray. Do you have 

some doubts? 

Because I just want to assure you, as someone who voted in favor 

of this bill, it’s our intention that the power go back to the local 

governments. 

Ms. HOFMEISTER. Please don’t mistake those comments in any 

way for not appreciating the return of the decisions that belong at 

the State level, where we embrace that. 

What I want you to hear very clearly is, number one, hold us accountable for results for kids, but don’t tell us how we achieve that. 

We know at the State level, as leaders, what works best in our own 

States. And we share the goal of having every one of our children 

ready for their next steps in learning and truly having the full potential realized for them. 

And that’s going to take a very strong partnership at local levels 

with stakeholders. So that is something that is very, very important to me, and it’s actually something I ran on. 

Mr. CARTER. Well, let me ask you this, then. Having said that, 

now that you do have this opportunity, what are you going to be 

recommending to help develop the freedom and the flexibility in 

the curriculum? Can you give me just a couple of examples of what 

you’re going to be recommending to the public schools? 

Ms. HOFMEISTER. Absolutely. Thank you for the opportunity. 

First of all, what we did, because I was not happy with an accountability system that masked the performance of our subgroups, 

one where we do not have truly a light shown on how students are 

performing beyond a label, a collective label. 

We need to have, I think, the use of best practices, the latest of 

research science. So we commissioned work to be done with research scientists in our two research universities this year. I’ve 

been in office for 1 year, so we have completed that. We are working also with—they have national reviewers look at that, as well. 

We’ve got to look at what is it that are good measurements for 

outcomes for kids, successful outcomes for kids, and then we need 

to make sure we’re measuring that. 

And that’s something that should have flexibility over time to respond and react to new data and new information. When we have 

a system in place where our hands are bound and we have to wait 

for permission— 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

38 

Mr. CARTER. Okay. 

Ms. HOFMEISTER.—then we are unable to accomplish. 

Mr. CARTER. Great. Great. 

Dr. Wilson, you being from Alabama and me being from Georgia, 

we are very strongly independent, and we want control. What are 

you going to be implementing? What are you going to be suggesting 

to your school systems, in your particular schools? You’re the boots 

on the ground there in the superintendent’s office. 

Mr. WILSON. We’ve already begun to do that. We are trying to 

customize our education. We have eight different academies. We 

have children who are leaving our campus. We have kids who are 

going to graduate with a welding degree. We have kids that are 

going to be dually enrolled. 

What we’re trying to do is not only provide, you know, collegeand career-ready, but we’re trying to provide the right college for 

students. We have conversations with children along the way, and 

if they tell us they want to do this, this, and this, but they want 

to go to a school that doesn’t meet that, we want to help them get 

in there. Everything we do along the way helps gets kids where 

they want to go and need to go. 

We are partnering. In fact, tomorrow we’ll be mentioning something, that we’re partnering with Morgan County Schools that have 

a wonderful auto tech. We have none. I don’t have a million dollars 

to spend on auto tech— 

Mr. CARTER. I’m very encouraged to hear that. 

Mr. WILSON. We’re sending kids to Morgan County. They don’t 

have some of the AP offerings we have. They’re going to send them 

to us. 

Mr. CARTER. Great. Great. 

Mr. WILSON. So we’re working together. 

Mr. CARTER. We appreciate what you’re doing. 

Mr. Talbert, I just want to ask you, from your perspective, any 

words of wisdom to them as they implement this, as they go forward now? 

Mr. TALBERT. Well, they are the boots on the ground. And so look 

to the text of the statute, watch what happens in negotiated rulemaking, watch what proposed regulations are put out there, and 

then read it, understand it, and then apply it. 

Mr. CARTER. Great. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Thank you all. 

Chairman ROKITA. I want to thank the gentleman. 

Ranking Member Fudge, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

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

Thank you all for your testimony today. 

Mr. Wilson, in your testimony, you state that, like politics, all 

education is local. I’m just curious, do you see civil rights as a local 

issue? 

Mr. WILSON. Certainly—I’m sorry. 

Ms. FUDGE. Should a child’s right to educational opportunity be 

left to local discretion, or is there a Federal role in protecting the 

civil rights of every child? 

Mr. WILSON. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

39 

It’s actually both. It’s all of us. The Civil rights is a local issue, 

it’s a State issue, it’s a national issue. So that is something that 

we’re going to meet the kids where they are, find out what their 

needs are, help devise a plan to get them where they need to be, 

and help matriculate them through the process. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you. But you agree it is a Federal issue? 

Mr. WILSON. It’s all of us, yes, ma’am. 

Ms. FUDGE. That’s not my question. 

Mr. WILSON. Okay. 

Ms. FUDGE. Is it a Federal issue? 

Mr. WILSON. It’s a Federal issue. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Talbert, in 2008, during your tenure as general counsel, the 

Bush administration issued new regulations requiring States to use 

a uniform graduation rate calculation for the purpose of accountability, as required by No Child Left Behind. 

Why did you believe that it was necessary and appropriate for 

ED to use regulatory authority to define a term like ‘‘graduation 

rate’’ when the term wasn’t fully defined in statute? Do you believe 

that the enactment of ESSA now makes similar clarification of 

statutory terms unnecessary? 

Mr. TALBERT. Well, no. I mean, certainly, ESSA sets forth definitions in the text of ‘‘graduation rate,’’ and so that’s what should be 

adhered to. If it’s not clear, then there may need to be clarity that’s 

included in regulations, but it’s in the text. 

Ms. FUDGE. Ms. Hofmeister, ESSA aims to ensure that all students have the opportunity to attend a high-quality school. According to the Alliance for Excellent Education, if Oklahoma’s graduation rate were to reach 90 percent, the new graduates would bring 

an additional $69 million into the economy in earnings, leading to 

the creation of 500 jobs. And that’s just for a single class. 

In Oklahoma, there are 24 high schools with an enrollment of at 

least 100 students where one-third or more of the students do not 

graduate. Under ESSA, these schools are required to implement 

comprehensive, evidence-based interventions. Can you describe how 

your State would implement this provision and reap those benefits? 

Ms. HOFMEISTER. Sure. Thank you very much, Congressman. 

And it starts with essential elements that we know are evidencebased that will work with local school leaders. And for some of 

them, it is a school principal that is serving in a dependent school 

district as a superintendent, as well. So they are the instructional 

leader as well as dealing with regulation that befalls a superintendent on top of that. So it’s about capacity again. 

The boots on the ground have to understand how to read the 

kind of information to guide smart decision-making. And that is 

where the Department must be able to provide that kind of support. 

We have not seen the kind of success we would have expected to 

see in the years under No Child Left Behind. Under the particular 

guidance that has been given federally, we have seen these schools 

not improving. So we have to ask the question of why. And I believe that the answer comes when we’re able to make decisions that 

fit the community, the challenges specific to that community, with 

the expertise and support at the State level. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

40 

We are changing school turnaround in our office because that is 

something in the agency that has not been successful and has to 

be done differently, and we now have that flexibility to use best 

practices and evidence. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you. 

Another question for you. You said that your current accountability system masks subgroup achievement and that is unacceptable, and I agree with that. 

Ms. HOFMEISTER. Absolutely. 

Ms. FUDGE. My question is, is there not a Federal role in ensuring that other States don’t have the same problem? 

Ms. HOFMEISTER. I think that this is something that every State 

leader bears that responsibility. It is not the responsibility of the 

Federal Government. It is the responsibility of our State to care 

and to provide the kind of resources— 

Ms. FUDGE. What happens if it doesn’t? 

Ms. HOFMEISTER. Well, I think that there’s certainly a responsibility at the State level, and that’s where— 

Ms. FUDGE. What happens if they don’t is my question. 

Ms. HOFMEISTER. Well, we have seen under No Child Left Behind that whatever did happen did not work and what is going to 

be— 

Ms. FUDGE. I’m talking about ESSA. 

Ms. HOFMEISTER. On ESSA, we now have the freedom to do what 

we perhaps at some States—and I can’t speak for all States—but 

weren’t able to do because their hands were tied. 

Ms. FUDGE. So who can speak for all States? 

Ms. HOFMEISTER. So I’ll tell you what we’ll do in Oklahoma. 

Ms. FUDGE. Okay. 

Ms. HOFMEISTER. In Oklahoma, what we want to do is, first, 

you’ve got to have face-to-face meetings with people. You can’t just 

provide some kind of centralized power that is going to actually 

make changes. And this may sound very simple, but it starts with 

relationships and trying to understand what people are facing and 

help educate those in local school districts to be able to really see 

a vision for where students can go, that oftentimes it may be lacking because of inexperience, maybe because of a lack of appreciation for best practices, the newest work and research. 

And it is a part of the State’s obligation to provide that kind of 

professional development and support. But it takes a specific plan. 

Chairman ROKITA. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. 

We’ll now hear from the gentleman—excuse me, the gentleman 

from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 minutes. I’m sure we’ll hear 

from him. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

There’s a lot of discussion about whether or not States are able 

to truly provide the level of detail and the quality of education for 

those with disabilities, lower income, those by ethnicity. And we 

hear this debate back and forth. 

I really have just brief questions. 

Ms. Hofmeister, are you aware that Oklahoma has a higher overall graduation rate than, say, the State of Virginia? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

41 

Ms. HOFMEISTER. Well, we certainly have a graduation rate 

above the national average, including our Native American population, which is the largest in the country. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Were you also aware that Oklahoma has a higher 

lower-income graduation rate than, say, the State of Virginia? 

Ms. HOFMEISTER. I’m not familiar with— 

Mr. RUSSELL. Were you also aware that our disability graduation 

rate in Oklahoma ranks at 78.5 percent as opposed to 51.5 percent 

in, say, the State of Virginia? 

What I’m trying to make the point on here is that just because 

there are perceptions of flyover country or, you know, different 

types of notions of what a quality education might be, you know, 

we’ve shown that when States are empowered with the choices, not 

only are graduation rates higher but we also see that in the areas 

of concern, where we think that the Federal Government should 

have a stronger Federal role—it’s assumed that the States don’t 

care about these populations, which is, I believe, absurd. Of course 

the States care about them. 

And I think Oklahoma, particularly when you look at disability 

graduation rates, I think, leads the country in a lot of its outreach 

and the type of things that it’s trying to do, you know, for these 

subgroups. 

It might also be interesting to ask, were you aware that the unemployment rate in Oklahoma—meaning to translate from graduates to, like, the workforce, which is the stated goal of almost all 

of us—are you aware that Oklahoma’s unemployment rate is also 

higher than, say, the State of Virginia? 

Ms. HOFMEISTER. Yes. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Hofmeister. It’s great having you here today. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time. 

Chairman ROKITA. I thank the gentleman. 

Ms. Bonamici of Oregon is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Fudge. 

I’m really glad that part of our discussion here today is how we 

uphold that civil rights legacy that was the original intent of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act. And, certainly, from all 

the work that we’ve done in this committee and the conference 

committee, there should be no question that the Every Student 

Succeeds Act is intended to carry on that legacy so that all students have access to high-quality education. 

ESSA advances this promise by continuing to target resources to 

underserved public schools; by committing Federal funds to supplement, not supplant, local investments; by requiring States to measure the progress of every student and hold each to high standards; 

by expecting States to identify when some students are lagging behind their peers; and also by requiring States to take meaningful 

steps to close opportunity and achievement gaps when they’re identified. 

Now, without question, No Child Left Behind largely missed the 

mark. It identified too many schools for intervention and prescribed 

interventions that were too rigid. But we shouldn’t forget why Congress passed No Child Left Behind. Before that law, some groups 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

42 

of students, like students with disabilities, could effectively disappear in some States’ school systems. So setting parameters to 

guarantee each child’s right to opportunities in public education is 

fundamentally a Federal responsibility. 

So I respectfully disagree when some people say, as I believe is 

in Dr. Wilson’s testimony, that Every Student Succeeds Act intends 

for States to be solely responsible for decisions regarding accountability. I don’t see that as accurate. 

The law establishes a lot of conditions to make sure accountability systems reflect the intent of Congress to identify and require action in schools where students are being underserved. 

That’s how Congress advances equity in education. And the Department of Education does have a clear role to play in interpreting 

statutory language and establishing parameters, consistent with 

the law and within the scope of the law, of course, as has always 

been the case. 

I want to begin by dispelling a rumor that the Every Student 

Succeeds Act somehow nullifies the Department of Education’s enforcement authority under the General Education Provisions Act, 

GEPA. 

So I’m going to ask Mr. Talbert and Ms. Almazan, can you point 

to any provision in the Every Student Succeeds Act that would 

alter, limit, or erode the U.S. Department of Education’s authority, 

as granted under GEPA, to enforce compliance with Federal education law? 

Mr. TALBERT. The General Education Provisions Act certainly 

provides authority to the Department, you know, to take enforcement actions if necessary. And so that remains even with ESSA. 

Ms. BOMANICI. Do you agree, Ms. Almazan? 

Ms. ALMAZAN. I do agree. And going all the way back to the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946, absolutely. 

Ms. BOMANICI. All right. 

Now, in too many schools in my home State of Oregon and across 

the country, students don’t have access to the resources they need, 

whether that’s advanced coursework, adequate technology, classes 

in career and technical education, arts, STEM, et. cetera. So the 

ESSA aims to close these gaps by not only providing extra Federal 

resources but also promoting more equitable allocation of State and 

local resources to low-performing schools that do need additional 

support to improve. 

So is the statutory language in the ESSA clear enough to ensure 

that equitable resources reach the schools that need the most support? And what can the Department do in the regulations to ensure 

that those States and districts are addressing persistent resource 

inequities, as intended by Congress? 

I’ll ask Ms. Almazan that question. 

Ms. ALMAZAN. Well, I do think the 1,062 pages—it is clear that 

the Department of Education retains the authority to regulate. 

I would have to get back to you on those specific items, but we 

did enumerate in our written testimony those items that we do 

want to see strengthened in Title I of the ESSA. And I also do 

want to draw your attention to that, it is on page 5, beginning on 

page 5 of our comments, our written testimony. And I touched on 

some of them in the oral testimony. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

43 

But we are really looking for rigorous and consistent standards. 

We’re looking for the strict State limit of 1 percent of all students. 

We are looking for definitions and parameters for those new statutory terms, such as ‘‘meaningful differentiation,’’ ‘‘substantial 

weight,’’ ‘‘much greater weight.’’ I think that the Department has— 

we would need the guidance from the Department on those areas. 

And looking at the history of going back to 1994 and No Child 

Left Behind and— 

Ms. BOMANICI. I’m sorry, Ms. Almazan. I’m going to try to get 

one quick question in, and I’m going to ask Dr. Wilson. 

Probably have to submit your response for the record, but you’ve 

named the many benefits of local control, but that has some risks, 

too. Whether when you look at expectations for students in 

Hartselle—I hope I said that right—with under 10 percent of students of color and 30 percent low-income students, that might be 

different for districts where there are large concentrations of lowincome students. 

So how can we make sure that States and districts will not take 

advantage of flexibility to lower expectations for some groups of 

students, especially in vulnerable communities? 

And because my time has expired, I’m going to ask you to submit 

the response. 

[The information follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

44 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 20 here 98524.020
45 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 21 here 98524.021
46 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 22 here 98524.022
47 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 23 here 98524.023
48 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 24 here 98524.024
49 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 25 here 98524.025
50 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 26 here 98524.026
51 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 27 here 98524.027
52 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 28 here 98524.028
53 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 29 here 98524.029
54 

Ms. BONAMICI. I thank the chair. 

Chairman ROKITA. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Pennsylvania is now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Chairman. 

Thanks to all the members of the panel for being here. 

It’s an exciting time, with what we’ve done with repealing No 

Child Left Behind, now with ESSA. We need to be working hard. 

And I appreciate the chairman doing this, because our job is oversight. Because without oversight, we will not achieve some of our 

intent that we had with ESSA that I find people are universally, 

whether it’s parents, kids, teachers, administrators, school board 

members, are very, very excited about. 

Clearly, we’re all accountable for our children and for all aspects, 

including education. And I appreciate the trust that we have shown 

in this body and in Congress and with the President signing the 

legislation in really pushing the authority, the flexibility, and the 

control to the State levels. 

My request of all of our friends who work in State capitals: have 

that same trust. Push that to the local level because they know— 

it’s their children. They don’t want their children to fail. They want 

their children to thrive. They want their children to get the type 

of education to where they can get great jobs, find those jobs in 

their home communities, and raise our grandchildren. 

I’ve always believed that there’s many different pathways to success in life, not just a 4-year institution. I’ll do my best to work to 

try to make that affordable and accessible, but career and technical 

education. I’ve got a son and a daughter-in-law who have done 

great things in their education, earned it in the military. Many different paths. Enter right into the workforce. 

Dr. Wilson, in your testimony, you mentioned the importance of 

meeting the needs of students who are looking to embark on all different types of career pathways. And as co-chair of the Career and 

Technical Education Caucus, I believe that the preparation of our 

students for the 21st-century workforce and 21st-century jobs is 

vastly important. 

Now, how will local flexibility give educators the tools to empower students to develop more well-rounded leadership, academic, 

and technical skills? 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. 

We live in the Huntsville area. Huntsville was just recently 

named one of the top three metro areas of its size in the United 

States. It has a wonderful economy, growing very quickly. We’re in 

workforce region development 2 in the State of Alabama. Part of 

my job is to understand the types of jobs that my students, when 

they graduate, will be receiving and going into those places. It’s my 

job to do that. 

I work closely with Dr. Philip Cleveland, who is over workforce 

development and career tech at the State department, and he is 

boots on the ground. He comes out, makes sure that we know 

what’s going on in our areas. Our seven county areas, we’re competing to get our kids ready for those jobs. I don’t want those jobs 

to have to be outsourced. So it’s part of my job to do whatever I 

need to do within my curriculum to make sure, if we need some 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

55 

pipefitters on the Tennessee River area, we’ve got a way to get a 

pipefitter teacher. We’ve got welding teachers that do the very 

same thing. 

We want every one of our children, when they graduate, if they 

want to graduate and not go to college but go into the workforce, 

to be able to graduate with a certification of some sort. We have 

EMT on our campus beginning next year. We’re looking at putting 

in CNA, Certified Nursing Assistant. If someone wants to go into 

the nursing, we have a wonderful health occupational academy 

that puts the kids out into the nursing field. They can graduate 

and already be a CNA and be working as they go to college at the 

same time. 

So that’s some of the flexibility that’s provided to us. But going 

back to what was said earlier, it’s about leaders and leadership capacity within the district to take that flexibility and go with it. You 

have to be willing to do that. And ESSA is providing us that opportunity to do that. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Have you—and my gut instinct is I don’t think 

that a lot of our school districts have done this yet, but there’s a 

couple of great resources out there. I was wondering if you have 

partnered with them yet. 

First of all, the workforce investment boards who—that was in 

2014. This brought put some great leadership into the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act. And we put a real emphasis on 

those aged 16 to 29 for the first time, the barriers they have to entering the workforce. I’d like to see our school districts partner 

more in a more robust way. 

And just recently something I discovered, despite being the chairman of our Agriculture Subcommittee, is our office of rural economic development with USDA has monies and programs designed 

around training and retraining of workforce as well as, basically, 

workforce needs. And I think both those maybe would be great resources and be a great collaboration. 

So I guess I’ll ask if you’re familiar with that. And if you’re not, 

I would just encourage all school districts to check those out. 

Mr. WILSON. We work closely with workforce development opportunities in Decatur-Morgan County area and with Huntsville. And 

I will look up that and make sure that we’re working with those, 

as well. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Yeah. USDA was brand-new to me as of last 

week, with a forum I hosted. We had about 80 folks come out, and 

it was pretty exciting to find out what opportunities are there that 

most people don’t know about. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROKITA. I thank the gentleman. 

The gentlelady from Massachusetts, Ms. Clark, is recognized for 

5 minutes. 

Ms. CLARK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thanks to all the panelists for being with us today. 

My question first is for you, Ms. Almazan. I am very concerned 

with some of the aversive behavior punishments that we see, including seclusion, restraint, expulsion, suspensions, which disproportionately affect students of color and students with disabilCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

56 

ities. In Massachusetts, just in the last school year, we had 603 

preschoolers suspended from their programs. 

I’m very grateful; we fought hard to have many of the traumainformed practices included in the ESSA. And can you speak to 

COPAA’s regulatory recommendations in this area? 

Ms. ALMAZAN. Sure. 

COPAA has had a statement of principles for quite some time on 

restraint and seclusion, and it is something that COPAA has been 

integrally involved in for quite some time, particularly working 

with Congressman Van Hollen in the introduction of the Keeping 

All Students Safe Act. That has been introduced, I think, every session since 2009. 

The statistics, if you just look at the GAO study back from 2008 

or 2009, are horrific, and the effect on children of being restrained 

or secluded in the manner that they’re being restrained and secluded are very alarming. 

I looked at that data recently from your home State and was 

really shocked to see how many students had been suspended and 

expelled for behavior that is just typical, particularly for children 

of color. I have been a practicing attorney for nearly 30 years and 

primarily represent families of color, families who live in poverty, 

and it is always stunned me that they are disproportionately affected by these practices. 

We know all of the horrific things that can happen to children 

when they are restrained or when they are secluded. We know that 

schools at times are not equipped to manage behavior in a way 

that is authentic and that looks at the circumstances that the students come from. I think that looking at the trauma-informed practices is very important, something that, frankly, we are all just 

learning about. 

I think that, very importantly, we have now raised to a national 

discussion the student resource officers in our school buildings with 

the effect of cellphone cameras, and we can see what those of us 

who have been on the ground representing families for many years 

have seen always in police reports and in expulsion proceedings 

and in discipline proceedings. Those cellphone videos expose for the 

world what those of us who have been in the trenches in civil 

rights have seen for many, many years. 

Ms. CLARK. And you said in your testimony that, often, the effect 

of no regulations means that the courts are left to be the experts. 

How do you see that particularly working if there weren’t any further regulations in this area for families? 

Ms. ALMAZAN. Well, we have a whole rich history in the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, when there was a statute, a civil rights statute, 

for people of disabilities that talked about people who are otherwise 

qualified, talked about people with disabilities, talked about reasonable accommodations, and we had no regulations, and people 

were forced to go to court, and courts were trying to interpret the 

statute. There were no regulations interpreting it. 

And the disability community took a page from the civil rights 

community and staged a takeover of a Federal building for 28 days 

in San Francisco until they could get their regulations from HEW. 

And as a matter of fact— 

Ms. CLARK. Thank you so much. I want to get one question in— 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

57 

Ms. ALMAZAN. Thanks. 

Ms. CLARK.—for Mr. Talbert. 

During your tenure as general counsel, regulations were promulgated that gave States more flexibility to exempt recently arrived 

English learners from State assessments. This was an allowance 

that was clearly not defined in statute. 

Would it be fair to limit the Secretary’s authority to issue regulations that actually provide more flexibility in key areas? And how 

is this any different from the Secretary’s authority to issue other 

clarifications or interpretations of existing statute? 

And you may have to respond in writing, since I’m about to expire. 

Mr. TALBERT. Sure. I’ll be happy to supplement my response in 

writing. But, again, in essence, you see what the text says, and 

then if it needs clarifying, if there’s some ambiguity, then there 

may be a need to write a regulation to deal with that. 

With respect to guidance, if the Department sought to issue guidance, they, again, would need to make sure that is within the contours of the text of the statute and that it doesn’t stray beyond into 

making new law, so to speak. 

But I’d be happy to supplement. 

[The information follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

58 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 30 here 98524.030
59 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 31 here 98524.031
60 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 32 here 98524.032
61 

Ms. CLARK. All right. Thank you. 

Chairman ROKITA. The gentlelady’s time has expired. I thank the 

gentlelady. 

The gentlelady from California, Mrs. Davis, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 

appreciate that. I’m doing a ranking over in the other committee, 

and so I appreciate being able to come in and have a chance to 

hear from all of you. 

Mr. Wilson, if I might just ask you more about this, because I 

know on the Web site in your school district it states that the student population is a tremendous representation of diversity in ethnicity and socioeconomic levels, having approximately about 7 percent minority and 30 percent qualifying for free and reduced lunch 

programs, and, also, school districts across your State enroll more 

than about 40 percent minority students and 50 percent low-income students. So I really wanted to ask you more about that. 

And from San Diego Unified School District—that’s the largest 

city that I represent. I actually served on that board for 9 years 

quite a few years ago. And nearly about 60 percent of the students 

there are low-income. More than a quarter of the district’s enrollment is limited English proficient. 

We know that history has really told us strong Federal guardrails to hold systems accountable for improving outcomes for all 

students – low-income, students of color—are sometimes ignored. 

And even from my own experience a number of years ago, I know 

that sometimes we’re—we want to make sure that we’re giving to 

all groups, whether or not they are the ones who are most vulnerable at any particular time. 

So you have testified that the role of the Federal Government is 

to simply support public schools by equally applying broad flexibility. And in that, as I understand it, there was no mention of the 

Federal Government’s role in promoting educational equity. 

So part of my question is whether you feel that, at least from 

what your experience has been, that equity has been achieved, and 

that we don’t really need to focus like a laser, I guess, on this 

issue. And I’m wondering whether we can learn from communities 

that are more homogeneous and well-resourced, whether or not 

they are really representative of our Nation’s public schools today. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. 

Schools are microcosms of the communities they represent. The 

diversity we have in Hartselle is the diversity we have in Hartselle 

because it is the footprint of Hartselle. 

I was a principal at Homewood High School, and Homewood 

High School is a suburban area just contiguous to Birmingham and 

had diversity—one would look at that diversity, and be very clear 

from the traditional sense of what is diversity—60 percent, 25 percent, 10 percent, so forth and so on. When one looks at our diversity and sees 90 percent and then 10 percent of everything else, 

that is putting diversity back in the box over traditional diversity. 

We have a lot of transients, as well, that’s not spoken and not 

seen in that diversity. That’s the biggest issue we face. The biggest 

issue we face is the child who comes to us 1 month and then 3 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

62 

months later goes somewhere else and then 3 months later comes 

back to us. We deal with those kids on a regular basis. 

Mrs. DAVIS. And, of course, in many of these districts that are 

so heterogeneous, they have that issue, as well. 

Mr. WILSON. That’s exactly right. 

Mrs. DAVIS. That’s a basic part of it. 

Mr. WILSON. And to answer your question, it’s an answer that 

you’ve got to pinpoint the places where it’s not working. And that’s 

where extra care and concern has to go from either the local group, 

the State group. And if that doesn’t work, that’s when the Federal 

steps in. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Uh-huh. So you do see a Federal role in that. 

Mr. WILSON. As I stated, there certainly is a role for the Federal. 

But the boots on the ground at the local level and the State level 

is where, I believe, having been in my situation— 

Mrs. DAVIS. Well, what would you like to see the State doing 

then? 

Mr. WILSON. I would like what the State’s doing, essentially 

what the ESSA’s doing: saying to local leaders, go out there and 

meet the needs and exceed the needs of the students in your area. 

Meet those needs. That’s what you want to see. 

You want to see the ability to go out there and let that leadership capacity—don’t hold me back, don’t grab me, okay, because I’m 

wanting to move forward because everybody else isn’t moving forward. At the same time, we’re going to have to figure out a way 

to prod those who won’t move forward. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Yeah. And do you see that sometimes that means 

really difficult challenges or decisions that have be made to— 

Mr. WILSON. It’s the most difficult— 

Mrs. DAVIS.—remove— 

Mr. WILSON. It’s the most difficult challenge. 

Mrs. DAVIS.—services in some cases— 

Mr. TALBERT. It really is. 

Mrs. DAVIS.—from other students? 

Mr. WILSON. Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay. Thank you very much, sir. 

Chairman ROKITA. I thank the gentlelady. 

The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Polis, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

My first question is for Mr. Talbert. 

In your judgment, did the Department under the previous authorizing law, No Child Left Behind, promulgate any regulations 

that resulted in new requirements that were inconsistent with or 

outside the scope of No Child Left Behind? 

Mr. TALBERT. Yeah, it’s a hard question to answer, to think back 

to everything we did— 

Mr. POLIS. That you’re aware of. 

Mr. TALBERT.—you know, during that period. I mean, I can’t say 

with certainly, but that—you know, that I’m aware of. 

Mr. POLIS. And, again, I think you touted in your testimony some 

of the provisions around ensuring that the Federal Government is 

prohibited from being involved with any requirement, direction, or 

mandate to adopt the Common Core standards. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

63 

Where that prohibition didn’t exist under the previous authorizing law, do you agree, also, that there was no specific authority 

given for the Department to interfere with those decisions under 

the previous authorizing law either? 

Mr. TALBERT. Correct. But they did have conditional waivers 

wherein certain conditions were added to waiver requests. And so 

there were certain things where— 

Mr. POLIS. And, reclaiming my time, of course, the waiver authority wound up being what we used because of the failures in the 

underlying accountability metrics of the law. It essentially all became a waiver law. I don’t think that was the original intent of 

Congress. That’s why we’re all grateful that we’re here replacing it. 

I’d be happy to yield if you wanted to address that. 

Mr. TALBERT. Sure. Sure. But, again, I mean, the waiver authority, it exists to waive provisions. It does not exist to affirmatively 

add new conditions or requirements. And that was what was taking place. 

Mr. POLIS. And my next question is for Superintendent 

Hofmeister. 

I’m sure you’re aware of research from the University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State that showed that Oklahoma’s waiver accountability system, ‘‘hid low test performance of poor and minority 

students’’. 

In your argument, you testify with an argument for flexibility 

granted by waivers that allows you to strengthen accountability 

measures and that you need more flexibility under ESSA. 

How can we be sure that Oklahoma and also, more generally, 

any State is using the flexibility for the right reasons rather than 

the wrong reasons? How can we ensure that you and other superintendents at the State level don’t take advantage of the flexibility 

to sweep low performance of some subgroups of students under the 

rug? 

Ms. HOFMEISTER. Well, thank you very much, Congressman. And 

I think what you must look at is what we have done. I commissioned that study. 

Mr. POLIS. And I’m not asking—I don’t mean this in an accusatory way. I mean, at the Federal level, how can we make sure that 

States are not using the flexibility for the wrong reasons? 

Ms. HOFMEISTER. I think the way you examine whether that is 

working is to hold States accountable for results for students. And 

that includes students in our protected groups. That is where we 

need to have a greater flashlight. 

And we’ve got to be able to keep up with the, you know, ways 

to view that and then respond with the most research-based, new, 

if that is needed, intervention. But it’s got to be acting on evidence, 

not anecdotal information or not perception. And I believe that we 

will do that. We are eager to do that. These are our kids. These 

are our—the future of our State. 

Mr. POLIS. And, again, I mean, at the State level—and, obviously, many of your district superintendents would say, ‘‘we at the 

district level’’; at the building level, they’d say, ‘‘we at the building 

level.’’ But we, obviously, here on this panel at the Federal level, 

how do we, in dealing with the States, make sure that a State superintendent, a State commissioner is not using the flexibility for 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

64 

the wrong reasons to kind of mask low performance of minority 

students? 

Ms. HOFMEISTER. Well, I think that we have to accept the fact 

that at the State level I am held accountable to the people of the 

State of Oklahoma. And that is the way this works at the State 

level for each different State. 

Mr. POLIS. Well, reclaiming my time, the fundamental problem 

with that, and getting back to the question of whether civil rights 

is a local, State, or Federal concern, is, yes, you’re accountable to 

the voters in our State—we have a State board that are – um but 

you’re not elected by a minority of the voters, you’re elected by a 

majority of the voters, and yet you’re accountable for the public 

education system that serves all students, including traditionally 

disenfranchised minorities and others, who may or may not have 

voted for you, may or may not have voted for other people that run 

in the race. 

So there’s more to it than just politics. There’s a civil rights aspect that transcends politics. And that, of course, is our Federal interest, as Dr. Wilson mentioned, as well. 

I want to go to Ms. Almazan for the last 15 or 20 seconds you’ll 

have to answer this. But I wanted to ask about Title I regulations 

revolving alternative assessments and alternative achievement 

standards. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have 

found that allowing States some flexibility for students with disabilities has done this. 

What’s at stake to make sure that we continue the proper accountability for students with disabilities? I think you’ll have to 

submit that to me in writing, Ms. Almazan, but if we can talk 

about, in writing, that whole area of alternative assessments. And, 

of course, we maintain that cap in this new law. 

[The information follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

65 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 26 here 98524.026
66 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 27 here 98524.027
67 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 28 here 98524.028
68 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 29 here 98524.029
69 

Mr. POLIS. I’m very grateful for the time, Mr. Chairman, and I 

yield back. 

Chairman ROKITA. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman’s time 

has expired. 

I’ll recognize myself now for 5 minutes. 

It’s been a very interesting discussion. I want to thank each and 

every one of our witnesses again for their testimony. 

I want to focus on Dr. Wilson’s testimony and the exchange with 

Mrs. Davis from California. I want you to recognize that at the last 

few seconds she said: The only way sometimes that you can serve 

those that need it is by taking services away from others. And I 

want to make sure that it’s recognized that was her opinion and 

not necessarily your testimony, unless it was, and then say so. 

Mr. WILSON. That was not my testimony. 

Chairman ROKITA. Right. 

I also find it amazing that only here in Washington can a man 

put on his Web site that he wants to treat everyone equally and 

that somehow be a bad thing. It’s ridiculous, in fact. And that’s my 

opinion. 

Mr. Talbert, there was some discussion going on about the General Education Provision Act, and you were asked about that and 

how that did not, in fact, limit the Secretary’s authority. 

I want to rehabilitate that discussion a little bit, because isn’t it 

true that act is basically the jurisdictional provision for the Department? That is to say, the Department will focus on education 

issues. In no way does the GEPA somehow nullify or limit a more 

specific statute, if you want to talk about rules of construction, like 

ESSA that certainly, regarding specific areas, does limit the Secretary’s authority just as Congress intended. 

Sir? 

Mr. TALBERT. Correct. It doesn’t nullify those very specific provisions that deal more directly with the issues you mentioned. 

Chairman ROKITA. All right. 

And, by the way, while I have you, I had to cut you off because 

you were way too long, but is there anything in your written remarks that you want to take a minute right now to go and focus 

on? 

Mr. TALBERT. Nothing, other than just to reinforce the whole 

theme of the law, which is more State and local control. That, indeed, when the Department was first set up in 1979-1980, that was 

some of the—the findings and the purpose statements of that law 

specifically provided that, that State and locals have primary responsibility for education and that the Feds supplement that. 

Chairman ROKITA. Uh-huh. Thank you. 

And since you have experience in the Department—and I’ve been 

listening to this exchange about clarifying things. In your experience at the Department, when you were there, was there ever a 

culture where you all took a perfectly defined part of the law, 

something that was specifically defined, and reinterpreted it, ignored it, or did something other than simply clarify ambiguous 

parts of the law? 

Mr. TALBERT. No. You take the law as you have it, and then you 

seek to implement it to the best of your ability. And if it’s necessary to clarify, you clarify it as well. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

70 

Chairman ROKITA. Right. When it’s necessary to clarify, not 

when it doesn’t suit your political ideology? 

Mr. TALBERT. Correct. 

Chairman ROKITA. Okay. And it’s your opinion that the culture 

has changed at the Department in that regard or not? 

Mr. TALBERT. I’m not quite— 

Chairman ROKITA. And you’ve got clients before the Department, 

so I understand the sensitivity there, but I’d appreciate an honest 

answer. 

Mr. TALBERT. Sorry. Can you rephrase the question? 

Chairman ROKITA. I’m known to be pretty direct, so I’m not sure 

I can do that. 

Let me go here. You mentioned negotiated rulemaking. 

Mr. TALBERT. Right. 

Chairman ROKITA. Is that a change from No Child Left Behind? 

And if so, what might we expect differently? 

Mr. TALBERT. Well, sure, there are some changes in the statute 

as to negotiated rulemaking and the requirement that, once they 

come up with a rule, they need to submit it to the committees so 

that they can see it and look at it before it then goes public in the 

Federal Register. That’s certainly one change. 

Chairman ROKITA. Okay. And that’s different around here how, 

specifically? How is it usually done? 

Mr. TALBERT. Well, there was no previous provision. I mean, they 

could go straight from negotiated rulemaking—once they get a consensus, they could go straight and publish it in the Federal Register with an NPRM without having to first check in— 

Chairman ROKITA. Notice of proposed rulemaking, for those 

watching at home. Right? NPRM. 

Mr. TALBERT. Yes, notice of proposed rulemaking. 

Chairman ROKITA. All right. And so this was a good change and 

reform and improvement, or not? 

Mr. TALBERT. Well, it gives a role for Congress, actually, in making sure that it follows the intent of the law. 

Chairman ROKITA. Right. Thank you. 

In the time I have left, I will ask if Ms. Hofmeister from Oklahoma would like to add anything to the discussion she’s heard. 

Ms. HOFMEISTER. Thank you very much, Chairman. 

This is about equity. It’s about an equity issue for all kids to 

close achievement gaps, to close an opportunity gap that exists. 

And we at the State level stand ready to lead in that effort. 

Chairman ROKITA. I thank you. 

I’ll yield the balance of my time and recognize the ranking member for any closing remarks. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to 

yield to the ranking member, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, previously in the hearing, the gentleman from 

Oklahoma made some disparaging remarks about what he called 

the State of Virginia. I’d just like to indicate that the Commonwealth of Virginia did extremely well and, actually, better than 

Oklahoma on the NAEP test, which is the standard for comparing 

jurisdictions across the country. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

71 

And I’d like to enter into the record the scores of each of the 

States. Virginia actually did better on each of the standards that 

he mentioned during his testimony. 

[The information follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

72 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 33 here 98524.033
73 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 34 here 98524.034
74 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 35 here 98524.035
75 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 36 here 98524.036
76 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 37 here 98524.037
77 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 38 here 98524.038
78 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 39 here 98524.039
79 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 40 here 98524.040
80 

Mr. SCOTT.I yield back. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much. 

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me first thank you all for being here. 

Certainly, I do agree that States need to be held accountable, 

which does, in fact, require an oversight role. But let me also say 

that there are a lot of problems in our States that have nothing to 

do with flexibility, absolutely nothing. We put kids in crumbling 

buildings. We have class sizes that are too large. States continue 

to cut funding for K-12 education. A lot of what is wrong with our 

schools has nothing to do with flexibility. 

But I do agree that there is a role. Now, hopefully that role is 

limited, but it is clearly authorized and it is clearly necessary that 

the Federal Government ensures that every child has a right to a 

quality education. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROKITA. I thank the gentlelady. 

Let me thank our witnesses again. I appreciate your passion. I 

appreciate your expertise, each one of you, in what you’ve brought 

to the table so far in your careers and what’s going to be expected 

of you going forward. 

We will be here. We will be here as partners, perhaps. Maybe 

that’s not the right word; maybe it is. But we will be doing our congressional oversight function. 

I think this law, as one of the authors of it, moved the ball down 

field a significant amount, in terms of having Congress, Mr. 

Talbert, write its laws with more specificity so that there’s less for 

the agency to do—let’s put it that way—or less that they should do. 

I think the ball has moved down the field in the fact that, yes, 

accountability, we agree, as parents, as taxpayers, as voters, as 

leaders, elected or not, accountability is a good thing in life. 

But, Ms. Hofmeister, it’s going to be up to you now to decide 

what success is and what it looks like. And you’ll be held accountable to your voters and taxpayers. 

And you, too, Dr. Wilson. 

And that’s the goal here. And we expect it to work well, we want 

it to work well, because we’re all in this together for the very same 

reasons: to have the next generation better off in every respect 

than we were so that they can fight and serve in a 21st-century 

world and win. And, again, that’s what brings us here today. 

I’d ask unanimous consent to insert in the record a letter sent 

this morning from a coalition of groups, the State and Local ESSA 

Implementation Network, to Acting Secretary John King, urging 

him to honor that congressional intent that I just spoke of and that 

we talked about it here this morning. 

The letter is signed by the National Governors Association; the 

National Conference of State Legislatures; the National Association 

of State Boards of Education; the National School Boards Association; AASA, The School Superintendents Association; the National 

Association of Elementary School Principals; the National Association of Secondary School Principals; the American Federation of 

Teachers; the National Education Association; and the National 

PTA. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

81 

The letter states, quote, ‘‘ESSA is clear: Education decision-making now rests with the States and districts, and the Federal role 

is to support and form those decisions.’’ 

So, with no objection, I’ll enter this into the record. 

Hearing no objection, the letter is inserted. 

[The information follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

82 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 41 here 98524.041
83 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 42 here 98524.042
84 

Chairman ROKITA. And, with that, I have no further business before the committee, and we are adjourned. 

[Additional submission by Ms. Fudge follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

85 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 43 here 98524.043
86 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 44 here 98524.044
87 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 45 here 98524.045
88 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 46 here 98524.046
89 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 47 here 98524.047
90 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 48 here 98524.048
91 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 49 here 98524.049
92 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 50 here 98524.050
93 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 51 here 98524.051
94 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 52 here 98524.052
95 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 53 here 98524.053
96 

[Questions submitted for the record and their responses follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

97 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 057 here 98524.057
98 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 58 here 98524.058
99 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 59 here 98524.059
100 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 60 here 98524.060
101 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 56 here 98524.056
102 

[Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER