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

20–458 PDF 2017

NEXT STEPS IN K–12 EDUCATION: 

EXAMINING RECENT EFFORTS TO 

IMPLEMENT THE EVERY STUDENT 

SUCCEEDS ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JUNE 23, 2016 

Serial No. 114–52 

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

( 

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

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education 

or 

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

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Matt Salmon, Arizona 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

Bradley Byrne, Alabama 

David Brat, Virginia 

Buddy Carter, Georgia 

Michael D. Bishop, Michigan 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Carlos Curbelo, Florida 

Elise Stefanik, New York 

Rick Allen, Georgia 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Ranking Member 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

Mark Pocan, Wisconsin 

Mark Takano, California 

Hakeem S. Jeffries, New York 

Katherine M. Clark, Massachusetts 

Alma S. Adams, North Carolina 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director 

Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on June 23, 2016 ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Kline, Hon. John, Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce 1 

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

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

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

Statement of Witnesses: 

Hall, Ms. Daria, Interim Vice President, Government Affairs and Communications, The Education Trust, Washington, D.C. .............................. 64 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 66 

Harrelson, Ms. Cassie, Math Teacher, Aurora Public Schools, Aurora, 

CO .................................................................................................................. 59 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 61 

King, Hon. John B., Secretary, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. ................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 11 

Pruitt, Dr. Stephen L.,Ph.D., Commissioner of Education, Kentucky Department of Education .................................................................................. 46 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 49 

Schuler, Dr. David R., Superintendent, Township High School District 

214, Arlington Heights, IL ........................................................................... 73 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 75 

Additional Submissions: 

Mr. Scott: 

Press Release ............................................................................................. 92 

Letter dated June 22, 2016, to Secretary King ....................................... 95 

Letter dated June 23, 2016, to Secretary King ....................................... 97 

Questions submitted for the record by: 

Salmon, Hon. Matt, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Arizona ........................................................................................................... 102,104,107,109 

Chairman Kline ................................................................................................ 104 

Messer, Hon. Luke, a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana .................................................................................................................. 104 

Stefanik, Hon. Elise, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New York ....................................................................................................... 104 

Guthrie, Hon. Brett, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Kentucky ........................................................................................................ 107 

Response to questions submitted for the record: 

Ms. Harrelson ............................................................................................ 111 

Secretary King ........................................................................................... 113 

Dr. Pruitt ................................................................................................... 116 

Dr. Schuler ................................................................................................. 121 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(1) 

NEXT STEPS IN K–12 EDUCATION: EXAMINING 

RECENT EFFORTS TO IMPLEMENT THE 

EVERY STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT 

Thursday, June 23, 2016 

U.S. House of Representatives, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., in Room 

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

of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Kline, Foxx, Roe, Thompson, Walberg, 

Guthrie, Rokita, Byrne, Carter, Bishop, Grothman, Curbelo, Allen, 

Scott, Davis, Courtney, Bonamici, and Adams. 

Staff Present: Janelle Gardner, Coalitions and Members Services 

Coordinator; Tyler Hernandez, Deputy Communications Director; 

Amy Raaf Jones, Director of Education and Human Resources Policy; Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk; Dominique McKay, Deputy Press 

Secretary; Brian Newell, Communications Director; Krisann 

Pearce, General Counsel; Lauren Reddington, Deputy Press Secretary; 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; 

Jacque Chevalier, Minority Senior Education Policy Advisor; 

Mishawn Freeman, Minority Staff Assistant; Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director; Christian Haines, Minority Education Policy 

Counsel; Brian Kennedy, Minority General Counsel; Julia 

Lamberti, Minority Education Policy Fellow; Alexander Payne, Minority Education Policy Advisor; and Michael Taylor, Minority Education Policy Fellow. 

Chairman KLINE. A quorum being present, the Committee on 

Education and Workforce will come to order. Welcome back, Mr. 

Secretary. 

Secretary KING. Thank you. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you for joining us. When we last met, 

the process for implementing the Every Student Succeeds Act was 

just getting underway. We had a healthy discussion about the byproducts of reform that Congress passed and is presently signed 

into law. Those reforms are designed to restore State and local control over K–12 schools. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

2 

That is not just my personal view, it is a view held by governors, 

State lawmakers, teachers, parents, principals, and superintendents who recently wrote that ‘‘The Every Student Succeeds Act is 

clear, education decision-making now rests with States and districts and the Federal role is to support and inform those decisions.’’ 

It is also the view of most honest observers as the Wall Street 

Journal editorialized, the law represents ‘‘the largest evolution of 

Federal control to the States in the quarter century.’’ 

The reason for this hearing, and our continued oversight is to ensure the letter and the intent of the law are followed. The critical 

part is holding your agency accountable, Mr. Secretary, for the 

steps that are taken to implement the law. 

When you were with us in February, you said, ‘‘You can trust 

that we will abide by the letter of the law as we move forward.’’ 

That is a strong statement and it is one of several commitments 

you have made that the Department would act responsibly, but actions speak louder than words. In recent words, we have seen troubling signs with the Department pulling the country in a different 

direction than the one Congress provided in the law. The first troubling sign is the rulemaking process itself. There are a number of 

concerns about the integrity of the negotiated rulemaking committee, including the makeup of the panel, a lack of rural representation, and the accuracy of statements made by the Department 

staff. 

The point of the negotiated rulemaking process is to build consensus among those directly affected by the law. It seems the Department has decided to stack the deck. The second troubling sign 

surrounds the longstanding policy that Federal funds are a supplement and do not supplant State and local resources. 

Prior to the Every Student Succeeds Act, this rule is applied differently depending on how many low-income students a school 

serves. Some schools face more onerous requirements than others. 

Last year, Congress decided the rule would be enforced equally 

across all schools. Now school districts must simply show that 

funds are distributed fairly, without prescribing a specific approach 

or outcome. The law explicitly prohibits the Secretary from interfering, yet that is precisely what you are proposing to do. 

What the Department is proposing would be both illegal and 

harmful to students and communities. It would impose a significant financial burden on States and force countless public school 

districts to change as they hire and pay their teachers. 

This regulatory effort is trying to achieve an end Congress deliberately rejected and the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service warrants and goes beyond ‘‘a plain language reading of the statute.’’ 

No doubt you have good intentions, Mr. Secretary, but you do not 

have the legal authority to do this. I strongly urge you to abandon 

this flawed scheme. 

The third troubling sign is the Department’s accountability proposal. Let me note that there are policies in this proposal we are 

pleased to see, such as how States set long-term goals and measure 

interim progress. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

3 

But in a number of ways, we also see the Department’s bad habit 

for making decisions that must be left to States. This is especially 

troubling given the law’s explicit prohibitions against Federal interference, including how States compare school performance and 

identify schools for support. 

For years, States grappled with the rigid accountability system 

imposed by Washington. The Every Student Succeeds Act turns the 

page on that failed approach and restores these decisions back to 

States and local leaders. 

I urge you, Mr. Secretary, to adopt a final proposal that fully reflects the letter and spirit of the law. We are raising these concerns 

because it is vitally important for the laws written by Congress to 

be faithfully executed and, just as importantly, we are raising these 

concerns because we want to ensure that every child has the best 

chance to receive a quality education. 

We cannot go back to the days when the Federal Government 

dictated national education policy. It did not work then and it will 

not work now. If the Department refuses to file a letter as intended 

in law, you will prevent State leaders, like Dr. Pruitt from Kentucky, from doing what is right for the school districts. You will 

deny superintendents like Dr. Schuler of Arlington Heights, Illinois, the ability to manage schools in a way that meets the needs 

of their local communities. And you will make it harder for teachers like Cassie Harrelson from Aurora, Colorado, to serve the best 

interests of the students in the classrooms. Later, we will hear 

from these individuals because they represent the people we work 

to empower. 

Every child in every school deserves an excellent education and 

the only way to achieve that, though, is to restore State and local 

control. That is what the Every Student Succeeds Act is intended 

to do and we will use every tool at our disposal to ensure the letter 

and intent of the law is followed. 

With that, I will now recognize Ranking Member Bobby Scott for 

his opening remarks. 

[The information follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. John Kline, Chairman 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Welcome back, Secretary King, and thank you for joining us. When we last met, 

the process for implementing the Every Student Succeeds Act was just getting underway. We had a healthy discussion about the bipartisan reforms Congress passed 

and the president signed into law. Those reforms are designed to restore state and 

local control over K–12 schools. 

That’s not just my own personal view. It’s the view held by governors, state lawmakers, teachers, parents, principals, and superintendents who recently wrote that, 

‘‘[The Every Student Succeeds Act] is clear: Education decision-making now rests 

with states and districts, and the federal role is to support and inform those decisions.’’ It’s also the view of most honest observers. As the Wall Street Journal editorialized, the law represents the ‘‘largest devolution of federal control to the states 

in a quarter-century.’’ 

The reason for this hearing and our continued oversight is to ensure the letter 

and intent of the law are followed. A critical part of our effort is holding your agency 

accountable, Mr. Secretary, for the steps that are taken to implement the law. When 

you were with us in February, you said, ‘‘You can trust that we will abide by the 

letter of the law as we move forward.’’ 

That is a strong statement, and it is one of several commitments you’ve made that 

the department would act responsibly. But actions speak louder than words. In reCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

4 

cent months, we have seen troubling signs of the department pulling the country 

in a different direction than the one Congress provided in the law. 

The first troubling sign is the rulemaking process itself. There are a number of 

concerns about the integrity of the negotiated rulemaking committee, including the 

makeup of the panel, the lack of rural representation, and the accuracy of statements made by department staff. The point of the negotiated rulemaking process 

is to build consensus among those directly affected by the law, yet it seems the department decided to stack the deck to achieve its own preferred outcomes. 

The second troubling sign surrounds the long-standing policy that federal funds 

are to supplement, not supplant, state and local resources. Prior to the Every Student Succeeds Act, this rule was applied differently depending on how many lowincome students a school served; some schools faced more onerous requirements 

than others. Last year, Congress decided the rule would be enforced equally across 

all schools. Now, school districts must simply show that funds are distributed fairly 

without prescribing a specific approach or outcome. The law explicitly prohibits the 

secretary from interfering, yet that is precisely what your proposal would do. 

What the department is proposing would be both illegal and harmful to students 

and communities. It would impose a significant financial burden on states and force 

countless public school districts to change how they hire and pay their teachers. 

This regulatory effort is trying to achieve an end Congress deliberately rejected and 

that the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service warns goes beyond ‘‘a plain 

language reading of the statute.’’ No doubt you have good intentions, Mr. Secretary, 

but you do not have the legal authority to do this. I strongly urge you to abandon 

this flawed scheme. 

The third troubling sign is the department’s accountability proposal. Let me note 

that there are policies in this proposal we are pleased to see, such as how states 

set long-term goals and measure interim progress. But in a number of ways, we also 

see the department’s bad habit for making decisions that must be left to states. 

This is especially troubling given the law’s explicit prohibitions against federal interference, including how states compare school performance and identify schools for 

support. For years, states grappled with a rigid accountability system imposed by 

Washington. The Every Student Succeeds Act turns the page on that failed approach and restores these decisions back to state and local leaders. I urge you, Mr. 

Secretary, to adopt a final proposal that fully reflects the letter and spirit of the 

law. 

We are raising these concerns because it’s vitally important for the laws written 

by Congress to be faithfully executed. And just as importantly, we are raising these 

concerns because we want to ensure every child has the best chance to receive a 

quality education. We cannot go back to the days when the federal government dictated national education policy—it didn’t work then and won’t work now. 

If the department refuses to follow the letter and intent of the law, you will prevent state leaders, like Dr. Pruitt from Kentucky, from doing what’s right for their 

school districts. You will deny superintendents, like Dr. Schuler of Arlington 

Heights, Illinois, the ability to manage schools in a way that meets the needs of 

their local communities. And you will make it harder for teachers, like Cassie 

Harrelson from Aurora, Colorado, to serve the best interests of the students in their 

classrooms. 

Later, we will hear from these individuals because they represent the people we 

want to empower. Every child in every school deserves an excellent education, and 

the only way to achieve that goal is to restore state and local control. That’s what 

the Every Student Succeeds Act is intended to do, and we will use every tool at our 

disposal to ensure the letter and intent of the law are followed. 

With that, I will now recognize Ranking Member Scott for his opening remarks. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing to 

discuss the implementation of the bipartisan law we worked to 

craft and enact last year. I look forward to the dialogue with both 

Secretary King and the panel of expert witnesses concerning the 

Department’s ongoing efforts to provide States and school districts 

with the clarity and guidance necessary to ensure effective implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act. 

As I have previously stated, I am proud of our collective efforts 

to craft a strong bipartisan law that was worthy of the President’s 

signature. Doing so is no small feat. However, passing legislation 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

5 

is only one step of many. Fulfilling the promise of the Every Student Succeeds Act rests on its successful implementation that honors Congress’ longstanding intent of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act, the intent to support and promote and protect at all 

levels of government the right to an educational opportunity for 

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

While ESSA returns much decision-making power to the State 

and local level, it is not a blank check. The Federal law includes 

important guardrails, most importantly that States and school districts are required to take action when students are not learning. 

States and districts get to decide which actions are most appropriate in each school’s unique context, but taking some action is not 

negotiable. A robust regulatory framework is necessary to ensure 

that States and school districts are getting the job done and taking 

action and each and every school is required to do so by federal 

law. 

The regulations require States and local districts to fully comply 

with the Federal law. Getting this right is hard work, and the Federal Government has an important role to play. 

I wanted to thank the Department of Education under the leadership of then acting Secretary King for moving so quickly to provide feedback for and to provide necessary clarity to practitioners, 

parents, and community members through the proposed regulations. 

I also want to commend the Secretary and staff for their transparency and continued collaboration with members in this committee and our staff throughout the process. The Department has 

demonstrated a commitment to fulfilling its regulatory responsibilities critical to helping States and school districts move forward expeditiously. 

On this point, there is considerable agreement. Although some 

State and local stakeholder groups originally urged that there be 

no regulatory framework, those very same groups in combination 

with others on the negotiated rulemaking panel reached an agreement on the proposed assessment regulatory text. 

We thank members of that panel, including the Department, for 

working and making compromises to reach consensus on proposed 

regulations with some of the most contemptuous and challenging 

issues in the entire law. Their consensus serves as a powerful affirmation of the need for the clarity and direction that the regulations 

provide. 

In addition to the negotiated rulemaking process, the Department recently released its proposed regulatory text for accountability, intervention, data reporting, and consolidated state plan 

development for public commenting. Again, I want to thank the 

Secretary for moving so quickly. Many individuals and groups request additional regulatory clarity on these important issues and 

the Department heeded those requested as the Department has 

done in the past. 

I am sure the robust dialogue, with all stakeholders, including 

Congress, will inform revisions and improvements in the proposal 

during the 60-day comment period which closes August 1st. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

6 

I look forward to hearing from today’s experts on the specifics of 

the Department’s proposal. And just as the Federal Government 

works to meaningfully to engage the diverse stakeholders to effectively implement the new law, State and local leaders must use the 

clarity provided by the Federal regulations to work collaboratively 

with all stakeholders in the development of new plans as the implementation moves forward. 

The upcoming election will usher in a new administration. With 

less than six months before that transition, Secretary King’s time 

at the Department is winding down. And with this upcoming 

change in leadership, States and school districts need the consistency and dependability to provide regulations, election year or not. 

I look forward to hearing from the Secretary about his efforts to 

put in place a meaningful regulatory framework that empowers 

States and districts to fulfill the congressional intent and improve 

educational equity beyond the current administration. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

[The information follows:] 

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

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this important hearing to discuss implementation of the bipartisan law we worked to craft and enact last year. I look forward 

to dialogue with both Secretary King and the panel of expert witnesses concerning 

the Department of Education’s ongoing efforts to provide states and school districts 

with the clarity and guidance necessary to ensure effective implementation of the 

Every Student Succeeds Act. 

As I have stated previously, I am proud of our collective efforts to craft a strong 

bipartisan law that was worthy of the President’s signature. Doing so was no small 

feat. However, passing legislation is only one step of many. Fulfilling the promise 

of the Every Student Succeeds Act rests in successful implementation that honors 

Congress’ longstanding intent of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; the 

intent to support, promote and protect, at all levels of government, the right to educational opportunity for every child, regardless of race, income, language status, or 

disability. 

While the ESSA returns much decision-making to the state and local level, this 

new law is not a blank check. Federal law includes important guardrails – most importantly, states and school districts are required to take action when students 

aren’t learning. States and districts get to decide which actions are most appropriate 

to address each school’s unique context, but the action is a non-negotiable. 

A robust regulatory framework is necessary to ensure that states and school districts are getting the job done and ACTING in each and every school required by 

federal law. Regulations empower states and school districts to fully comply with 

federal law. 

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

to play. 

I want to thank the Department of Education, under the leadership of then-Acting 

Secretary King, for moving so quickly to collect feedback from and provide needed 

clarity to practitioners, parents, and community members through proposed regulations. 

I also want to commend the Secretary and his staff for their transparency and 

continued collaboration with members of this committee and our staffs throughout 

the process. The Department’s demonstrated commitment to fulfilling its regulatory 

responsibility is critical for helping states and school districts move forward expeditiously. 

On this point, there is considerable agreement. Although some state and local 

stakeholder groups originally urged that there be no regulatory framework, those 

very same groups – in combination with others on the negotiated rulemaking panel 

– reached an agreement on the proposed assessment regulatory text. I want to 

thank members of the negotiating panel, including the Department, for working – 

and making compromises – to reach consensus on proposed regulations for some of 

the most contentious and challenging issues within the entire law. Their consensus 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

7 

serves as a powerful affirmation of the need for the clarity and direction that regulations provide. 

In addition to the negotiated rulemaking process, the Department recently released its proposed regulatory text for accountability, intervention, data reporting, 

and consolidated state plan development for public comment. Again, I want to thank 

the Secretary for moving quickly. 

Many individuals and groups requested additional regulatory clarity on these important provisions, and the Department heeded those requests. As has been emblematic of the Department’s work to-date, I am sure that robust dialogue with all 

stakeholders, including Congress, will inform revisions and improvements to the 

proposal during the 60 day comment period, which closes on August 1. I look forward to hearing from today’s experts on the specifics of the Department’s proposal. 

Just as the federal government works to meaningfully engage with diverse stakeholders to effectively implement the new law, state and local leaders must use the 

clarity provided by federal regulations to work collaboratively with all stakeholders 

in developing new plans, as the implementation process moves forward. 

The upcoming election will usher in a new administration, and with less than six 

months left before that transition, Secretary King’s time at the Department is winding down. With this upcoming change in leadership, states and school districts need 

the consistency and dependability provided by regulations, election year or not. 

I look forward to hearing from the Secretary about his efforts to put in place a 

meaningful regulatory framework that empowers states and districts to fulfil congressional intent and improve educational equity beyond the current administration. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman yields back. Pursuant to Committee Rule 7(c), all members will be permitted to submit written 

statements to be included into the permanent hearing record. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 14 days to 

allow such statements and other extraneous material evidence during the hearing you submitted for the additional hearing record. 

It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished witness. 

We are glad to have you here. As Mr. Scott said, the last time 

you were here, I believe you were still the acting Secretary, so congratulations on becoming the official Secretary of the Department 

of Education. 

Everybody here knows your background and we are delighted 

that you are here. I am going to ask you now to raise your right 

hand. 

[Witness sworn] 

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

in the affirmative. Before I recognize you to give your testimony, 

let me just remind you of the lighting system. It will apply pretty 

rigorously to my colleagues, not so much to you. we will turn the 

5-minute clock on; that is sort of a background reference to you. 

Please give your testimony as you see fit. It has been a long time 

since I gaveled down a cabinet Secretary for speaking too long, but 

if you would try to wrap up at a reasonable time because we are 

getting actually a surprising number of members to show up considering that the House adjourned and I am sure there was a race 

to the airport sometime early this morning. So I am going to make 

sure that all of my colleagues have a chance to engage in the conversation. Mr. Secretary? 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOHN B. KING, SECRETARY, 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Secretary KING. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chairman 

Kline, Ranking Member Scott, and members of the committee. I apCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

8 

preciate the invitation to come back before this committee and testify today regarding how the Department of Education is moving 

forward with the implementation of the Every Student Succeeds 

Act which the President signed into law on December 10, 2015. 

I am grateful that thanks to the leadership of Chairman Kline 

and Ranking Member Scott and members of this committee, Congress acted last year to reauthorize this critical piece of legislation. 

Over the past 7–1/2 years, thanks to hardworking educators supported by families, our schools and students have made tremendous 

strides. Our high school graduation rate is at a record high and 

schools in 49 States are helping students meet college and career 

ready standards in assessing their projects. 

More States also are investing more money in helping make sure 

children are ready to succeed when they enter kindergarten, increasing their spending on early learning by 1.5 billion dollars over 

the past 3 years and yet, so much work remains, far too many students from every background still arrive at college needing remedial classes, and black and Hispanic students continue to lag behind their white peers in achievement and graduation rates. 

The latest figures from our civil rights data collection illustrate 

in powerful and troubling ways the disparities in opportunity and 

experience for different groups of students in our schools. 

Just a few statistics. Students with disabilities are more than 

twice as likely as students without disabilities to be suspended. 

Schools with high concentrations of black and Latino students 

are less likely to offer advanced courses such as calculus and physics which also are critical for success in college. 

One out of every five high school students who are English language learners is chronically absent. 

These are the very children that the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965 as most recently amended by ESSA was designed to protect and serve. 

The good news is that ESSA provides local communities and 

States with a pathway toward equity and excellence for all students as well as tools that will help them get there. Using the 

greater flexibility in ESSA, States will be able to go beyond test 

scores and mathematics and English language arts by adding their 

own indicators of school quality and progress to ensure a rigorous, 

well-rounded education for every student. We know that strong literacy and math skills are necessary for success in college, careers 

and life, but they are not sufficient. 

And importantly, a rich, rigorous, well-rounded education helps 

our children make critical connections among what they are learning in school, their curiosities, their passions, and the skills they 

will need to become sophisticated thinkers and leaders who will 

solve the most pressing challenges facing our communities, our 

country, and our world. 

Understanding that this requires all of us working together, 

States are expected to involve local educators, parents, civil rights 

groups, business leaders, tribal officials, and other stakeholders in 

choosing other indicators of quality such as decreases in chronic absenteeism or increases in the number of students taking and passing advanced classes. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

9 

The legislation also includes critical protections and provides additional resources for traditionally underserved students, such as 

students of color, students from low-income families, students with 

disabilities, students learning English, Native American students, 

fostered and homeless youth, and migrant and seasonal farmworker children. 

States must take meaningful actions to improve schools where 

students or groups of students are struggling and high schools that 

have low graduation rates year after year, but the flexibility of the 

law also allows them to tailor these interventions to schools’ specific needs. As with all legislation and policy, the quality and fidelity of the implementation is critical to success. 

Please allow me to update you on our progress towards helping 

the States implement this law fully and faithfully. 

The first thing we did was listen. Today, we have convened over 

200 meetings with stakeholders across the country. 

This included dozens of meetings with educators and school leaders in rural, urban, and suburban communities across the country. 

We posted a notice seeking public comment on areas in need of 

regulation in the Federal Register and requested feedback on areas 

in need of guidance. We received hundreds of comments. In response, we prioritized accountability, including data reporting and 

State plans, assessments under Title I, Parts A and B, and Title 

I’s requirement that Federal dollars supplement and not supplant 

State and local funds for education. 

As you know, this past spring, we engaged in negotiated rulemaking on Title I, Part A, assessment and supplement, not supplant, regulations. We appreciate the input we received and 

reached consensus on assessments, but not on how to enforce the 

law’s supplement not supplant requirement. 

We are now considering how best to address the feedback we received on the latter as we develop our policy. 

Last month, we also issued our Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

on accountability, State plans, and data reporting which was published in the Federal Register on May 31st for a 60-day public comment period, concluding on August 1st. We encourage comment on 

those proposed regulations. 

Consistent with a strong civil rights legacy of the law, the proposed regulations ensure a focus on all students, including historically underserved subgroups of students, in accountability decisions. They also ensure that meaningful action is taken to improve 

lowest performing schools with families, educators, and stakeholders playing an important role in the process. They also ensure 

that educators, students, and families have an accurate picture of 

students’ academic performance. 

In April, I announced the Department would be issuing nonregulatory guidance in several key areas concerning students in 

foster care, homeless students, and English learners. Each of these 

areas was raised frequently as a priority issue in our stakeholder 

outreach. 

I am happy to report that this morning, we have released guidance on ensuring educational stability for children in foster care. 

As you know, ESSA for the first time it includes protections for fosCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

10 

ter youth who largely, because of their mobility, lagged behind 

their peers academically. 

Our guidance, released jointly with the Department of Health 

and Human Services, clarifies the new statutory requirements regarding children in foster care, promotes greater collaboration between State educational agencies, local educational agencies, and 

child welfare agencies as well as highlighting promising examples 

to help guide implementation. 

We plan to issue guidance to support homeless students and 

English learners at the end of this summer or early fall. 

The Department is also working on guidance to support States 

and districts as they implement Title II, Title IV, and the provisions in ESSA around early learning. 

Our aim with these guidance documents would be to highlight 

examples and best practices as States and districts make use of 

new funding opportunities in the law. 

As I noted at the time, we have made incredible progress as a 

Nation over the past several years, but there is more to be done. 

ESSA is a bipartisan achievement that provides a statutory foundation to close our remaining gaps and address our persistent inequities. 

I am pleased to hear feedback from this committee today and 

look forward to continuing to work with all of you to ensure highquality implementation of this law, supported by the Department, 

and that guarantees a world-class education for every child. Thank 

you, I am happy to answer your questions. 

[The statement of Secretary King follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

11 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 1 here 20458.001
12 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 2 here 20458.002
13 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 3 here 20458.003
14 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 4 here 20458.004
15 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 5 here 20458.005
16 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 6 here 20458.006
17 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I will be happy to 

start my feedback now. I partially quoted some of your remarks 

from February in my opening statement. That quote came in response to my request that you would commit to regulating consistent with the statute. 

You said in full, and I am happy to read here and make sure I 

have got it right, ‘‘You can trust that we will abide by the letter 

of the law as we move forward to do regulations, provide guidance 

and technical assistance to States and districts, and our intent is 

to work together with you and to gather input from educators, from 

parents, and from members of this committee as we move forward.’’ 

I am concerned your proposal is not fully consistent with that 

commitment. The questions I and other members have will reflect 

those concerns. 

I want to start by asking you about the supplement, not supplant 

proposal which you discussed in your opening remarks. As you 

know, we asked the Congressional Research Service to review the 

proposal and they agreed with us that your proposal, if it were promulgated as a final rule, would likely be illegal. 

They said, and I quote, ‘‘Based on the plain language of the 

above provisions, in conjunction with the legislative history and the 

statutory scheme as a whole, it, therefore, seems unlikely that Congress had intended Section 1118(b) to authorize the Education Department to establish regulations of the required Title I(a) expenditures to meet or exceed those of non-Title I(a) schools.’’ 

I would like you to respond specifically to one of those conclusions. CRS said the plain language of the section does not appear 

to require equalized spending and the chair proposal failed to justify why you believe it does. Could you explain, beyond the talking 

points we have already heard, how a plain reading of Section 

1118(b) would require the result you have proposed? 

Secretary KING. Sure, the historical context for supplement not 

supplant is important. That language was originally added to the 

law after the NAACP LDF report that showed that Federal dollars 

were being used to backfill State and local responsibilities to highneed schools, particularly those serving students of color. That is 

the history of that language. The language clearly must mean that 

the Federal dollars are intended to be supplemental, not to backfill 

State and local responsibilities. 

We know that there are districts where 25 to 30 percent more 

is being spent in schools serving affluent students than in schools 

a few blocks away serving low-income students. 

That is clearly inconsistent with the very words supplement not 

supplant. 

Our proposal seeks to ensure that we enforce the law as written, 

that the funds are truly supplemental, however, we received feedback throughout the negotiated rulemaking process, adjusted the 

proposal throughout that negotiated rulemaking process, have continued to receive feedback and input from stakeholders since the 

completion of the negotiated rulemaking sessions, and look forward 

to moving forward in a way that is responsive to the feedback and 

input we have received. 

Chairman KLINE. Well, I thank you for the response. However, 

the point I am trying to get at is that the statute, the plain lanCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

18 

guage of the statute, is very, very clear and it does not say that 

the Secretary is allowed to decide on his own what the intent of 

the history of this was. The language is very, very clear and that 

is what the Congressional Research Service said. 

Second, I want to ask one straightforward question about your 

accountability proposal. In looking at it in totality, my concern, you 

are deliberately attempting to increase the number of schools identified for interventions beyond what was intended in the statute. 

Five years from now, what number or percentage of schools nationwide do you anticipate will be identified for comprehensive and 

target support as a result of these regulatory proposals? 

Secretary KING. The proposal really seeks to ensure that States 

have the opportunity to broaden their definition of educational excellence, to introduce additional indicators of performance beyond 

just English and math performance and graduation rates. 

It also creates the opportunity for States to set goals and targets 

for performance and it importantly requires that States and districts intervene when schools are in the bottom 5 percent of performance, when schools are struggling with particular subgroup 

performance, and when schools have low graduation rates year 

after year. The number of schools that will be identified will depend on how States use that flexibility, but clearly a priority in the 

law was to ensure that States act meaningfully in schools that are 

struggling over their achievement gaps and that is what the regulations require. 

Chairman KLINE. So as you pointed out, you do not know and 

that is not to be—not a surprise. How many schools would fall into 

that category? 

Presumably, the Department is doing some analysis of this as it 

goes forward and if that is so, would you please commit to providing that analysis to us so we can see how this is going to unfold? 

I am afraid that right now, I mean, we are early here and that is 

why I am glad you are here so we can get at this, it looks like there 

is an attempt here to increase the number of schools identified for 

interventions. And so we want to look at that analysis. That is not 

the intent of the statute, we need to see that number go up. 

We wrote the language very specifically. Yeah, I have asked and 

you have answered that you will give us that analysis as we go forward. Let me yield for questions to Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin, I would 

like to submit for the record documents, one a statement released 

yesterday by 31 civil rights groups calling for stronger accountability regulations and another letter from the leadership of the 

Tri-Caucus urging the Secretary and the administration to fulfill 

its regulatory obligation and protect the civil rights of all students, 

including that supplement not supplant and— 

Chairman KLINE. No objection. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. And Mr. Secretary, when you propose 

regulations as a comment period, what is the purpose of the comment period and what happens after the comment period? 

Secretary KING. The purpose is really for us to gather input from 

stakeholders. We want to hear from educators, from parents, from 

civil rights organizations, from tribal leaders, from business communities, from community based organizations that are working 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

19 

with young people, particularly our young people most at risk and 

we will gather that input and we will address it and similarly we 

want input from members of Congress and appreciate this opportunity to gather feedback. 

The ultimate regulations will reflect our attempt to respond to 

the input we have received. 

Mr. SCOTT. You mentioned supplement not supplant. There’s language in Brown v. Board of Education that said that the opportunity of education is a right which must be made available to all 

on equal terms. 

If a locality is chronically underfunding certain schools, is there 

not an obligation to come up with some appropriate equitable funding outside of the ESSA? 

Secretary KING. Absolutely. 

Mr. SCOTT. And then supplement and not supplant would mean 

that you would have to supplement over what your legal obligation 

is, is that right? 

Secretary KING. That is right. 

Mr. SCOTT. Can you say a word about how you identified—how 

you make sure that all students in underserved schools receive the 

support that they need in light of the fact that some schools look 

like they are doing okay but subgroups are not performing? 

Secretary KING. That is right. We have been careful in regulations to try to ensure that schools do not fall through the cracks 

because we do not want students to fall through the cracks, so the 

regulations give States the opportunity to set meaningful goals and 

targets, but require them to intervene where schools are not making overall progress for their subgroups. And so we will be vigilant 

in showing that States respond and States have to intervene where 

subgroups are struggling, where the schools are in the bottom 5 

percent of performance or where they have low graduation rates. 

And if their interventions do not meaningfully improve student 

performance, they will need to intensify those interventions using 

evidence of effectiveness. 

Mr. SCOTT. Now, you mentioned the bottom 5 percent. There is 

some suggestion that the data collected will not allow you to rank 

schools and if you cannot rank schools, how do you ascertain the 

bottom 5 percent? 

Secretary KING. That is an excellent question. It is one of the 

reasons the regulations require a summative rating, but how 

States approach that summative rating could vary. 

Some States may use a numerical index, some States may use 

an A–F methodology, some States may use categorical labels for 

different sets of schools, but the law does require that States intervene in that bottom 5 percent of schools and they will need to have 

a summative rating to get to that bottom 5 percent. 

Mr. SCOTT. Last month, the GAO released a study that I requested, along with former Ranking Member George Miller and Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, on segregation 

in public schools K–12. The GAO report found that there is an increase in racial and socioeconomic segregation and that it is getting 

worse. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

20 

I have asked for hearings and, hopefully, one day we will have 

hearings on that, but what can ESSA do to reduce racial and socioeconomic segregation in our public schools? 

Secretary KING. Let me say we are deeply concerned about the 

lack of progress since Brown v. Board of Education in places 

around the country where we are seeing increased socioeconomic 

and racial isolation. 

I think there is an opportunity as States consider their flexibility 

to intervene in struggling schools to think about how they create 

a strategy that would promote school diversity. 

We made school diversity a priority in our competitive grant programs. The President, as you know, has proposed in the 2017 budget an initiative called ‘‘Stronger Together’’ that Senator Murphy 

and Congressman Fudge and you are also helping us to advance, 

that would allow us to direct resources to support voluntary locally 

led efforts to increase school diversity. 

We also are using the magnet schools program, the longstanding 

magnet schools program, to support local efforts to increase school 

diversity, but we know that for our low-income students, they do 

better in schools that are socioeconomically diverse. 

We know that we want to prepare all of our young people for success in a diverse society. All kids benefit from diverse schools. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you, gentlemen. Dr. Foxx, You are recognized. 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary King, welcome 

to the committee. I would like to return to the supplement not supplant conversation. 

In 2011, the Department issued a policy brief and report analyzing the compliance and the comparability requirement for per 

pupil expenditures for Title I schools, a proposal that is analogous 

to the Department regulations. Assuming you have more recent 

data, would you please provide us the estimated cost in State and 

local dollars of compliance with the proposal put forth by the Department during negotiated rulemaking? 

Secretary KING. I just want to make a distinction in the way that 

the question was framed between comparability and supplement 

not supplant. Comparability addresses the issue of services, supplement not supplant addresses the issue of the allocation of State 

and local funding. 

The proposal that was discussed in negotiated rulemaking and 

adjusted throughout the negotiated rulemaking would require 

States to comply with the—supplement districts to comply with the 

supplement not supplant provision of the law. The process that districts would use to do that would be determined by the districts 

and so there is not a single number that can be estimated today 

for that proposal. But as I said, the proposal was adjusted throughout the negotiated rulemaking and we will continue to adjust that 

proposal based on the input and feedback we have received since 

then. 

Ms. FOXX. Well, how can the Department put forward a regulatory proposal without understanding the financial impact and 

how can the Congress and the public be expected to evaluate its 

wisdom without such information? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

21 

Secretary KING. Well, the requirement in the statute is that the 

Federal dollars be used in a way that is supplemental. In fact, the 

language ‘‘supplement not supplant’’ is intended to separate the 

issue of the use of Federal funds from the issue of State and local 

funds, to say that State and local funds should be allocated in a 

way that is equitable and then the Federal funds should be supplemental. 

Ms. FOXX. The Center for American Progress reported last year 

the nationwide compliance cost for proposals similar to yours would 

be 8.5 billion. Do you think that is a reasonable estimate? 

Secretary KING. Again, the design of the proposal was to implement the requirement in the statute that the Federal dollars be 

used in a way that is supplemental. Districts have a responsibility 

to ensure that they are not using those Federal dollars to backfill 

State and local funds. To the extent that districts are today using 

Federal dollars to backfill State and local funds, that is not consistent with the very words ‘‘supplement not supplant.’’ 

Ms. FOXX. Let me now focus on how school districts would comply with your proposal. The Department’s 2011 report indicates 

some of the Nation’s largest school districts could have to increase 

spending by anywhere from less than 1 percent to as much as 20 

percent. 

Please tell the committee specifically how school districts are not 

able to increase spending by these amounts to comply with your 

proposal. 

Secretary KING. Again, the frame of the question suggests that 

districts today are using the Federal dollars in a way that backfills 

local and State responsibilities so the requirement would be for districts to ensure that they are not doing that, that the State and 

local funds are allocated in a reasonable fashion that allows the 

Federal dollars to be used to indeed supplement. And to the extent 

that a district is spending 25 to 30 percent more in a school serving 

affluent kids than in a school serving high needs kids 10 blocks 

away, that cannot possibly be consistent with the very words ‘‘supplement not supplant,’’ and the adjustment they will need to make 

is one that is required by the statute. 

Ms. FOXX. If school districts are forced to change teacher hiring 

policies and somehow find the legal and contractual authority to do 

so in order to comply with the proposal, school districts, rather 

than school principals will assume more authority for personnel 

hiring decisions in local schools. 

Tell us how this would benefit low-income students when we 

know that effective principals with greater staffing autonomy can 

be one of the most effective ways to increase student outcomes? 

Secretary KING. If today districts are using the Federal dollars 

in a way that is not supplemental, then they need to correct that. 

They can do that in a number of ways. 

They could create incentives for veteran, highly effective teachers 

to go to schools. They could invest in pre-K programs in a highneeds school. 

They can ensure that high-needs school has access to counselors 

or launches advanced coursework. The reassignment of teachers is 

not a requirement of the proposal. As a general matter, I do not 

think anyone supports forced transfers of teachers. That is not reCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

22 

quired by the proposal. What the proposal requires is that the Federal dollars are used in a way that is, in fact, supplemental. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentlelady’s time has expired. Ms. Davis, 

you are recognized. 

Ms. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to see you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you for joining us, although we probably got to bed 

a little bit later perhaps than you did. 

I wanted to follow up with Ranking Chairman Scott’s question 

and ask about the ‘‘n’’ size, the number of students that we group 

to evaluate whether or not they are being properly served. And I 

think that there are some concerns that students perhaps, especially special education students, for example, might not be really 

properly seen within an accountability system. 

Could you comment on that and, for example, if the number fell 

to 28, 29 for a group, what would that mean? 

Secretary KING. We are very concerned about issues of ‘‘n’’ size. 

What we propose in the regulations is that States would set their 

‘‘n’’ size, but they would need to provide justification to the peer review process if they set an ‘‘n’’ size above 30. The reason we use 

that is based upon research evidence on how we ensure that we 

capture subgroups as well as possible. 

IES did a study that showed that if you use an ‘‘n’’ size of 40 or 

more, you would only get to about 32 percent of students with disabilities but if you use an ‘‘n’’ size of 30, you would get to about 

79 percent. So we ask States for a justification if they want to go 

above 30. 

We have heard feedback that there are stakeholder groups who 

are interested in requiring a justification at a lower ‘‘n’’ size and 

we do worry about subgroups getting missed and at the schools 

where a particular subgroup of students does not get the adequate 

services to make academic progress and that is never identified. 

One of the important elements of the law is requiring subgroup 

disaggregated data and we want to make sure that is enforced 

while preserving for States the flexibility to justify their ‘‘n’’ sizes. 

Ms. DAVIS. Exactly. I mean, the disaggregation we know is key. 

In looking back at the way this was done previously and States 

moving forward, are you confident that you are going to be able to 

have this be more a universal standard or, in fact, it sounds like 

there is quite a bit of leeway perhaps with some groups? I just 

wanted to throw that out there because I know that it is a concern 

and it will be very important not to have that slipping. 

Secretary KING. Yes, that is a very fair concern. The vast majority of States today are at 30 or lower and we think the peer review 

process will provide an important check on the end sizes that 

States ultimately choose. 

Ms. DAVIS. All right, thank you. And I wanted to go to the issue 

of teacher evaluations because we know that in ESSA, it is quite 

clear that this is really up to local school districts. And yet I wanted to sort of talk about the language a little bit because clearly, in 

this legislation, we want States and we certainly want school districts to do the very best they can in developing a program that engages teachers in the process and in addition helps them be better, 

helps them do what they really want to do and have it be meaningful. And that is where many districts and many States really do 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

23 

not have a process to do that, so where is the Federal role in that 

now and what is certainly within the purview of the ESSA? 

Secretary KING. We think it is very important that the Every 

Student Succeeds Act preserves the language of equitable distribution of quality teachers from No Child Left Behind, and so we have 

been working with States, as you know, on equity plans where 

States are working on initiatives to ensure that their teachers are 

well prepared, that they have a diverse supply of teachers, that 

they are getting teachers to high-needs schools. 

There are State initiatives focused on rural schools. State initiatives focused on the necessity of teachers of English language 

learners where some States are struggling in shortages and we 

think those equity plans are very important. What we propose in 

regulations for comment is that States will adjust and update those 

equity plans based on some of the new language that appears in 

the Every Student Succeeds Act. But we want to make sure that 

our low-income students, students of color, students with disabilities, English learners are not disproportionally taught by teachers, 

for example, who are teaching out of field. And so that is an important, I think, requirement of ESSA and an important principle. 

Ms. DAVIS. Yeah, I think I am equally concerned about that sharing of information because we know that we have peer evaluation 

systems that actually work very well, also, and they may require 

more substitute time, but I just want to mention that and go ahead 

and— 

Chairman KLINE. Gentlelady’s time has expired. Dr. Roe? 

Ms. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Mr. ROE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And congratulations, Dr. 

King, on your nomination and appointment as Secretary. And just 

a couple of comments about backfill. And in our State I was the 

mayor of our local community. Once we had raised the education 

spending, we could never go back, so there was no backfill at all. 

Anything that came in was additional to what we had in the list, 

at least in the State of Tennessee. And for the first time since I 

have been a Congressman, 7–1/2 years, it is fun to walk into an 

elementary school or high school and see smiling teachers and 

smiling administrators finally. They do like this bill. 

I spoke with one of my school directors yesterday and I think it 

is really the implementation of it and that is why we are talking 

today so that last night we went to a 1,000-page rule to define one 

word. I do not think we need that kind of weight down on these 

folks and distance where we are, the Department of Education is 

provided grants where for the Foundation where I live, it has done 

a great job of getting distance. 

I want to revisit a conversation we had in February about the 

weights States apply or the indicators of their accountability system. It said, and I quote, ‘‘I think we have an opportunity where 

the States can broaden how they define excellent education and 

make their definition more well rounded than the narrow focus on 

English and math assessments like we saw during the No Child 

Left Behind era.’’ 

I was pleased that your proposal did not prescribe weights or 

offer a range of weights in which States would have to choose but 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

24 

I am concerned about the parameters that did include to limit the 

way States waiver indicators. 

Can you point to me the statutory language that supports your 

proposal and how the limitations imposed in your proposal fit with 

your commitment to give States an opportunity to broaden how 

they define success? 

Secretary KING. Thanks. I appreciate your question. So, we carefully, consistent with the statute, do not prescribe the weights or 

percentages for different indicators. The statute does require substantial weight for the academic indicators and that the academic 

indicators are of much greater weight than the other indicators. 

And so we built into the regulations a set of checks that will be 

implemented through the peer review process to ensure that States 

are acting in ways that are consistent with the statutory language 

around substantial weight and much greater weight. 

But we do think there is tremendous flexibility for States to 

think through what additional indicators they will use to supplement English and math and graduation rates and opportunity for 

States to look at things like whether or not they are providing access to advance coursework as that effort tries to do in Tennessee, 

whether providing access to advanced coursework in a way that is 

equitable for various subgroups of students. 

Mr. ROE. We agree that local control is essential. Accountability 

is essential and desegregation of data is essential to find out that 

our children—their needs are not being met. 

Mr. Secretary, as you know, the statute requires States to include in their accountability systems at least one indicator of school 

equality or student success. The point of this, of course, is to ensure the State accountability systems are taking into consideration 

more than just test scores in determining school performance. 

The statute includes a few broad parameters for this indictor but 

your proposal goes beyond those parameters by requiring that this 

additional indicator be supported by research that performance or 

progress on such indicator is likely to increase student achievement 

or graduation rates. Could you provide the statutory justification 

for adding this additional requirement? 

Secretary KING. This is really about the State plan and showing 

that as States do this work of identifying these other indicators, 

that the indicators are connected to students’ long-term success, 

which is the goal of these additional indicators being a part of the 

accountability system. And as the peers and experts on the peer review panels review the State plans, we think it is important for 

them to look at the indicators in that context. 

One quick example: in the CRDC data that I just described, we 

found that nationally 13 percent of students are chronically absent. 

That is 13 percent of students are missing more than 15 days of 

school each year. 

We know that chronic absenteeism is closely connected to students’ progress from grade to grade and their likelihood of graduation. That is a good example of an indicator that a State might consider. Obviously it is up to States to decide what those would be, 

but that is a good example of where there is very strong evidence 

based on the association between that indicator and long-term success. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

25 

Mr. ROE. Just one last comment before my time expires is that 

I think we have a great opportunity to put the fun back in education again. 

I mean, the teachers were just absolutely—I would go into a 

group of educators and ask how many would do this job again and 

the majority would not and that is not good. And I think this gives 

us an opportunity to put the fun back in education and I hope we 

do not weight it down too much. I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Adams. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you Ranking 

Member Scott and Secretary KING. I thank you for joining the committee again and congratulations. 

I am very proud of the work that was done to get the Every Student Succeeds Act passed into law. The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was long overdue and we 

owe it to our students and families around this country to update 

this important legislation. And now as we work toward implementing the act, I believe it is appropriate for us as members of 

Congress to monitor its progress, but I am absolutely opposed to 

efforts to undermine the Department of Education and the spirit of 

the law. We had our chance to write the law and now we should 

let the process move forward. Additionally, the Federal Government has an appropriate role in education policy and I believe that 

the Department will move it forward to fully realize it. 

In States like my State, North Carolina, Federal policies are essential to protect our students from a number of State policies that 

in my opinion are ruining a State that has once been a leader in 

education. Since Republicans took over the General Assembly, we 

have passed a number of bills and I was there during the time that 

in my opinion would dismantle public education and that has been 

some of what I have seen. 

We need to value our educators more and we have some questions in North Carolina about whether or not we do that. We pay 

them less than the national average and we are ranked as one of 

the worst States in per pupil spending and so provisions like supplement not supplant are really imperative. So without it I am sure 

that North Carolina might make even deeper cuts to education and 

we are very concerned about that. 

If you can just expand a little more on the importance of Federal 

funds being used to supplement instead of supplant State funds, I 

would appreciate that. 

Secretary KING. Thank you. At the end of the day really this is 

a question of ensuring that all students have access to a quality 

education. And we know that in places where there is disproportionate spending on affluent students and less spending on highneeds students, it translates into a real difference in students’ experience in school. 

For example in that CRDC data, the Civil Rights Data Collection 

data, we found that there are 1.6 million students who go to a 

school that has a school police officer but no school counselor. If 

you have no school counselor in your school, how are you going to 

support students’ socioemotional needs? How are you going to ensure that students have access to good postsecondary planning? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

26 

We found that in many of the schools that served the largest 

numbers of African American and Latino students, you cannot even 

take calculus or physics. How are we going to ensure diversity in 

the STEM fields and that students have an equitable shot at 

STEM careers if their schools do not even offer those classes? And 

so money certainly is not everything, but in schools that have inadequate resources, that lack of funding translates into a real lack of 

educational quality for kids. 

Ms. ADAMS. Yeah, thanks. So oftentimes students attending Title 

I schools are students of color. These same students also make up 

consistently underperforming subgroups. And so having said that, 

do you truly believe that allowing States to choose how to determine the success of subgroups will actually result in the improvement of subgroup outcomes? 

Secretary KING. I think we really have to be vigilant in the peer 

review process to make sure that States commit to meaningful 

goals and targets for subgroups. 

In the regulations, we try to set guardrails around that process 

but peer review of the State plans will be critical and vigilance in 

the part of the Department and ultimately in the part of Congress 

to make sure that States are attentive to the needs of subgroups 

and that where subgroups are struggling, they meaningfully intervene. We know the history that there are States that have long ignored the performance of subgroups, States that prior to No Child 

Left Behind did not even count their English learners in their accountability systems at all. 

We have got to be vigilant. We think that we have set the right 

guardrails in the regulations, but we also are interested in folks’ 

feedback on those. 

Ms. ADAMS. So thinking about these same subgroups of students 

without requiring specific summative ratings, how will we hold 

schools accountable for improved outcomes for our lowest performing students? 

Secretary KING. We think that summative ratings are critical for 

transparency for parents, for teachers, and ultimately for communities. Which schools are struggling and need that additional support and also which schools are excelling and can be models for 

other schools to replicate their best practices. 

We also require transparent reporting on each of the indicators 

because we think it is important to have that summative rating but 

also to have good information at the school level and also the subgroup level and all of the indicators. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Chairman, I yield 

back. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Guthrie. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Hello, Mr. Secretary, and I agree that the way you 

write the law and you implement and execute the law is what our 

Founding Fathers intended. However, it is our responsibility not 

just to write the law and let it go, it is to have oversight to make 

sure you are complying with the intent and the language of the 

law. So a couple of things. 

One, today my commissioner from Kentucky is going to be here 

to speak to us and one of the things I know he has concerns with 

and others have concerns with is about the expedited timeline reCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

27 

quired in your proposal. The ESSA says No Child Left Behind’s accountability provision officially end on August the 1st of this year 

and in the statute it says that new accountability systems will 

begin with the 2017–2018 academic year. And it is clear that Congress intended for 2016–2017 to be a transition year to allow States 

to develop their accountability systems, yet your proposal effectively requires accountability systems to be developed and implemented 2016–2017, in this academic year. And I asked you about 

this transition when you were before us in February and you answered, and I quote, ‘‘As we move into the 2017–2018 school year, 

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

And I interpreted your answer as meaning you understood congressional intent that accountability systems would become active 

at the beginning of the school year. The initial identification of 

schools would come at the end of the school year based on those 

new systems. Unfortunately, what you propose seems to contradict 

the statute and will short circuit the important consultation process taking place at the State and local level. 

Can you make a commitment to us to revise this proposal in the 

final rule to align the requirement with congressional intent and 

ensure that parents and educators have the opportunity to fully engage in the policymaking process? 

Secretary KING. Just to be clear on the proposed rule, under the 

proposed rule that is currently out for comment, there is no State 

that would need to have their accountability system in place prior 

to 2017–2018. 

The question is what will happen in 2017–2018? And we are interested in folks’ feedback on the timeline. We are eager, I think, 

as the country is to ensure that we move beyond just English and 

math test scores and graduation rates, that we actually begin to 

use those other indicators. That is our opportunity to expand the 

definition of educational excellence and we would like to move 

quickly to that expansion. 

I understand that there are folks who would like to extend the 

focus just on those English and math test scores and graduation 

rates, but we want to make sure we get to this broader definition. 

But we are interested in folks’ feedback on the timeline and will 

try to listen carefully to the input we receive. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. My commissioner will be here this afternoon testifying. I am sure you will have people here to hear feedback and 

continue the dialogue. 

One thing on the ‘‘n’’ size and I understand that there is information prescribed by law that needs to be provided, the 

disaggregation of data, we want to make sure that groups are followed and we understand the statistics. 

I understand that, but the statute allows the State to pick that 

‘‘n’’ size and this says as long as they meet the criteria, you cannot 

prescribe the ‘‘n’’ size. It is pretty clear on that and that is something that we debated and talked about and we will not—I know 

you talked about one of my colleagues about the information. We 

want you to have that information because we voted to put into law 

that the country gets that information. 

We also voted to say that we want the States to determine what 

that end size is and if they do not do it correctly then you have 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

28 

some opportunity to do so, but it seems like you are prescribing an 

end size of 30 up front, which I am not sure where the statutory 

authority for that is. 

Secretary KING. Just to be clear, we are not requiring any specific end size. What we are asking is when States submit their 

plan, if they choose an end size above 30, they provide information 

with respect to why they made that choice. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Do you give them deference if they have— 

Secretary KING. Again, the regulation preserves the right of 

States to set their ‘‘n’’ size. Now, the peer review process does create an opportunity for the plan to be reviewed and I do think it 

would be important in terms of civil rights protection. 

For example, if a State were to set their ‘‘n’’ size in a way that 

would ensure that students with disabilities would never be counted in their accountability system, that would clearly be problematic 

and I am sure that the peers and the peer review process would 

respond negatively to them, but in the regulation we do not set the 

‘‘n’’ size. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Maybe I misread that, but 30 was the default unless there was some—it did not seem like the States were able to— 

and you are right, if the States set an end size that did not comply 

with the rest of the law, there is something that we need to address because we want that information as well. That is why we 

voted to support the law and negotiation. 

I only have 10 seconds left, so I will yield back. Thanks for coming today. 

Secretary KING. Thanks. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Bonamici, did 

you want to ask a question? 

Ms. BONAMICI. Yes, please, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KLINE. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Chairman Kline. Welcome to the committee, Secretary KING. I wanted to align myself with the comments from Dr. Roe and others who have said that they have perceived a real difference in visiting with schools and teachers, educators, parents, students knowing that the changes were made and 

the Every Student Succeeds Act that they were desperately needing—and thank you for the work that you are doing along with the 

Department to implement the Every Student Succeeds Act and 

support States that are redefining their assessment and accountability systems to meet their unique needs. Thank you for your 

leadership and I want to follow up on a question that was just 

asked by Mr. Guthrie. 

I understand the need to prevent a gap in meaningful interventions for students, but I am concerned that asking states to identify 

schools for comprehensive and additional and targeted support in 

the 2017–2018 school year could discourage States from being innovative. And I know the Department will work with States to modify 

their accountability systems and add indicators as data from districts becomes available, a process that could take several years. 

Nonetheless, asking States to implement accountability systems 

in time for the 2017–2018 school year seems to run the risk of 

hampering innovation, so can you please discuss the Department’s 

alternatives? Is there a way that we can both prevent a gap in supCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

29 

port for students and give States the time to put in comprehensive 

accountability systems that make good use of new data? 

Secretary KING. One important point about the proposed regulations is that States would be able to use the 2017–2018 year as a 

planning year for those schools that are requiring comprehensive 

intervention, but I think ultimately, as I have said, we are interested in feedback on the timeline questions. 

I think we, like many educators in schools, have a sense of urgency about broadening the indicators that are used for accountability and to the extent that States are prepared to move more 

quickly to incorporate an indicator like chronic absenteeism or 

there are some States that have put forth a very meaningful effort 

to try to reduce disproportionate suspensions, for example, for students of color. 

If States are in a position where they want to introduce those indicators, we would like to see them do that more quickly so that 

they are moving beyond just the English and math scores and 

graduation rates. But we are interested in feedback and want to 

work with States and districts to think through the best timeline. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, and I am glad that the Department’s 

proposed regulations for accountability would direct schools identified for comprehensive and additional targeted support to evaluate 

resource inequities, but the proposed rule appears to focus on only 

two examples of discrepancies and resources: per pupil expenditures and access to out of field and inexperienced teachers. 

So considering these inequities is important, of course, but I wonder whether States and districts would not consider other important inequities, for example, access to advanced coursework, technology, arts and music. How will the Department encourage States 

and districts to identify and address a broad array of resource inequities? 

Secretary KING. Yeah, we tried in the regulation to balance 

wanting to make sure that States do the things that they must and 

then also offering additional options and there is ‘‘may’’ language 

around things like advanced coursework and access to preschool, 

which we think is a very significant equity issue. But again, this 

is a place where we are open to feedback with always trying to 

strike the right balance around State and local flexibility and real 

transparency around resource equity. And we are interested in 

feedback not only from States, but from civil rights community and 

advocacy organizations as we think through the right resource equity indicators. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Terrific, and the Every Student Succeeds Act is 

clear that participation rates for a statewide assessment needs to 

be a factor in accountability systems and the Department’s proposed rule for accountability systems would give the States four options for incorporating data on participation. 

One of the options allows States to develop their own proposals 

for including participation rate in accountability systems. For 

States that pursue this route, how will your Department assist 

them as they contemplate actions that are perhaps less punitive 

but no less effective in ensuring that all students are counted? 

Secretary KING. I think this issue of the participation rate is very 

bound up with how do we ensure strong parent understanding of 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

30 

the role of assessments in schools? And I think there are clearly 

reasons that folks have seen over the last decade. 

An increase in assessments, not the federally required assessments, but increase in assessments in schools that have driven a 

very legitimate set of concerns, that is why the administration proposed a testing action plan and has put forward guidance and 

helped to offer places where folks can use existing Federal resources to support reductions in assessment. 

That is a feature of the Every Student Succeeds Act that we 

want States to take advantage of and districts to take advantage 

of so that they right-size the assessments and where they can, replace maybe low-level bubble tests with higher quality performance-based assessments. Those kinds of efforts we think will help 

ensure that States and districts are able to comply with the law’s 

expectation that all students will participate in the assessments. 

Ms. BONAMICI. As someone that has been talking about fewer, 

better assessments for a long time, I look forward to continuing to 

work with you on that and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

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

Mr. BYRNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, it is hard 

to remember all of us up here. I am going to remind you that I am 

a former member of the Alabama State Board of Education for 8 

years. All four of my children attended the public schools in the 

State of Alabama. All four of them attended a magnet school in the 

city of Mobile, a large urban school system. So I have a great deal 

of interest in this and I have very high expectations for the performance of our public schools with regard to every student. 

When you were here before the committee in February, I asked 

about the phrase of the new law ‘‘consistently underperforming and 

whose responsibility it is to define the term.’’ I also wrote a followup letter on March the 1st that you responded to on June 17th, 3– 

1/2 months later. 

Now, in your response, you pointed to the proposed rulemaking. 

When you were here before, you did not really answer my question 

and after reading the proposal, I think I understand why. 

When you were here before, you did say to me, ‘‘I am committed 

to working with this committee, committed to ensuring that implementation is consistent with the letter of the law.’’ 

I would say to you, Mr. Secretary, if you are committed to working with the committee, taking 3–1/2 months to answer my letter 

is not consistent with that remark. 

The letter of the law says the meeting of ‘‘consistently underperforming’’ is to be determined by the States. 

The letter of the law also says that you are prohibited from prescribing ‘‘the specific methodology used by States to meaningfully 

differentiate identified schools under this part.’’ 

Now, taken together, the law prohibits you from constraining 

State flexibility around the definition of ‘‘consistently underperforming,’’ yet your proposal does exactly that so help me. 

Why would you violate the statute of your proposed rulemaking 

and give a definition when the Every Student Succeeds Act prohibits you from doing so and requires you to leave that up to the 

States? Why did you do that? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

31 

Secretary KING. To be clear, in our regulation, ‘‘consistently 

underperforming’’ is defined by the State, using goals and targets 

that the State would set. 

Again, our role, we believe, is to try to gather feedback and 

input, which we did. And based on that input, we put forward a 

proposed rule that is now out for comment, but we were careful to 

comply with the letter of the law and ‘‘consistently underperforming’’ is left to States to define with their own goals and targets. 

Mr. BYRNE. Well, I would ask you to go back and look at the rule 

because I think it does prescribe and I think you are setting yourself and the Department up for a lawsuit that you would lose. 

I am not going to file it, but somebody will. And you talked earlier about legislative intent. I am giving you legislative intent right 

now. You need to go back and look at your rule because it clearly 

violates the letter of the statute and prescribing. 

It needs to totally leave this up to the States and in any way 

that you prescribe to the States how they make that determination, 

you are clearly in violation of the statute. So I am asking you to 

go back and look at your rule, hear what a member of this committee that is a strong proponent of this law is telling you, and I 

think if you do, and you are a smart man and you are a fair man, 

if you go back and look at it fairly, you are going to see that you 

are in violation of the statute. 

I do not want you to be in violation of the statute. I do not think 

you want to be in violation of the statute. But when you have a 

consistent pattern of this administration and putting out regulations after they have been warned that you are in violation of the 

statute as written by Congress and then somebody has to file a 

lawsuit, here is what happens when a lawsuit is filed. You spend 

a lot of resources, the people that file the lawsuit spend a lot of resources, and every penny of those resources is a penny that did not 

go to educating a child. And I want, and I think you want, every 

resource we can bring to bear to educate children in this country. 

Somebody deep in the bowels of your Department or some smart 

lawyer that is working with you is taking you in a direction that 

the statute clearly prohibits you from going. And as someone that 

wants this to work, I am telling you, go back and look at your rule 

because I think you are in violation of the statute. 

Secretary KING. I appreciate the feedback. We will look at the 

rule, but, again, I just want to underscore that States will set the 

goals and targets from which the determination of consistently 

underperforming will be made. 

Mr. BYRNE. We are going to hold you to that and I yield back. 

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

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I 

want to continue on this line of questioning regarding your rules, 

but a different rule, supplement versus supplant. You recall that 

under the old SNS rules, supplement not supplant rules, that we 

differentiate between targeted schools and school-wide schools, and 

targeted schools have 3 specific tests and for schools that were less 

than 40 percent low income, correct? And the school-wide group 

was for schools that were more than 40 percent of kids—yeah, 

more than 40 percent schools. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

32 

And you acknowledge, don’t you, that under ESSA, the Every 

Student Succeeds Act, that the methodology for distributing State 

and local funds to schools is just to be fair and equitable without 

regard to receipt of Title I funds? So we got rid of the targeted test 

in ESSA and had the school-wide test for all of SNS. 

Secretary KING. It is written with the core requirement being 

that the Federal dollars are, in fact, supplemental. 

Mr. ROKITA. Right, but it is the school-wide test now applied for 

all SNS. Your rule has a methodology applied to it that calls for 

Title I schools to receive at least as much input in per pupil funding as the average amount of per pupil funding received by the districts non-Title I schools. 

So we specifically put prohibition in the new law that says you 

are not to apply methodology, yet you do. So how are you not in 

conflict, directly in conflict, with our legislative intent, similar to 

what Mr. Byrne was pointing out? 

Secretary KING. So just to clarify on the timeline, so we have a 

proposed rule that was offered in negotiated rulemaking, feedback 

was given during negotiated rulemaking, the rule was suggested, 

and we continued to receive input and feedback and do not have 

currently a rule out for public comment, but— 

Mr. ROKITA. Does that mean that— 

Secretary KING. We anticipate issuing a regulation on this, but 

I just want to be clear that there is not currently a proposed rule 

that is out for comment. 

Mr. ROKITA. They are negotiating rulemaking and you do realize 

that you are in direct conflict with— 

Secretary KING. So with respect to negotiating rulemaking, we do 

not prescribe the methodology. In fact, the methodolgy is left to districts, districts could use, for example, a weighted student funding 

formula approach. 

A district could use an approach that is based on the traditional 

assignment of staff model of budgeting, so we do not prescribe the 

methodology. What we were trying to do in the rule that was discussing negotiating rulemaking is ensure that districts are indeed 

using the Federal dollars in a way that is supplemental and not 

backfilling State and local responsibilities. 

Mr. ROKITA. Do you agree that the only requirement we have in 

the Every Student Succeeds Act regarding the methodology and 

distribution of SNS funds is that the fair and equitable and agnostic as to a school’s Title I status, that was the intent? I was in a 

conference committee and I helped write this law. That was our 

legislative intent. 

Secretary KING. But clear history on supplement not supplant 

is— 

Mr. ROKITA. I am not talking about history, I am talking about 

this new law. 

Secretary KING. Including in the new law, the language in the 

new law is quite clear on the notion that the Federal dollars will 

be supplemental and in order to— 

Mr. ROKITA. The methodology around that, the only requirement 

is that we have to be agnostic as to a school’s Title I status and 

otherwise be fair and equitable. 

Secretary KING. If the district is using the Federal dollars— 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

33 

Mr. ROKITA. Correct. 

Secretary KING.—in a way that supplements rather than supplants local and State obligations. 

Mr. ROKITA. But you understand that you are defining what 

‘‘supplement’’ means, though, through the methodology that it be 

fair and equitable. That would take in the school-wide test and applying it to all of SNS. And in doing that, the only requirement is 

that a district’s method for allocating State and local funds be agnostic as to the school’s Title I status, agreed? 

Secretary KING. Not if they are supplanting. I think there are 

two things. There is the question of the district’s methodology, 

which is up to the district, and then there is the question of whether or not the Federal dollars are being used in a way that is, in 

fact, supplemental and that is the plain language of the statute—— 

Mr. ROKITA. It seems like the Department and you, sir, are 

maybe using some comparability attempts to backdoor SNS, I 

mean— 

Secretary KING. No, because comparability is focused around 

services and with supplement not supplant, we are focused on the 

allocation of funds. 

Mr. ROKITA. I do not think so. I think the CRS document—are 

you familiar with Congressional Research Service’s document? On 

that it explains how your supplement not supplant proposal is really a backdoor proposal to amend the statute’s comparability provision, and they walk through legislative history of that provision 

during Congress deliberations on what became ESSA. And they 

said a relevant part, ‘‘ESSA did not alter the existing statutory language and prohibits the use of staff salary differentials when determining expenditures per pupil from State and local funds. Nevertheless, the proposed regulations appear to effectively require LEAs 

to use actual teacher salaries for SNS purposes despite the fact 

that ESSA did not address it in this manner.’’ And I have to yield 

back. 

Chairman KLINE. Gentleman yields back. Mr. Walberg. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 

Secretary, for being here, and the discussions to the questioning 

that is going on is important for us to do. Northwest Ordinance 

stated about education, religion, morality acknowledged being necessary to a good government and the happiness of mankind, schools 

and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. 

That is not in the U.S. Constitution. That is in the Michigan 

Constitution, taking high priority for the necessity of having 

schools and education encouraged so that people will be happy and 

productive. And so a discussion today as we have passed ESSA is 

really an attempt to roll back the power of authority, direction, control of the Federal Government, and to really give, as we have 

talked about at least in a bipartisan way, the front quotient back, 

the exciting quotient back, to educators in the classroom, school 

board members on the board, parents with means, and aspirations 

for their kids to know that education is a neat, beautiful, fun, and 

productive priority in civilization and that the greatest control will 

come from with the creativity from the local schools, teachers in 

the classroom, school boards, parents who love their kids, State 

boards of education. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

34 

And so today as we are discussing this, it is becoming at least 

evident to me that this is a creative tension that we have when we 

have a powerful entity in the U.S. Department of Education, arguably wants to do right by kids in schools, but has a philosophical 

position to push and a pattern that has been developed over the 

years of, whether you believe it or not, we want to make sure that 

what we want to happen in our schools happen. 

That is human and I think the reason for our discussion today 

in this hearing is to say the priority goes back to the States and 

that is what our law did. So along with that, that would be a creative tension that we have and will continue to have and hopefully 

make it productive. 

To continue on similar questioning again and develop it further, 

Mr. Secretary, the statute requires States to assess 95 percent of 

students while protecting the right of parents to opt out and granting States the sole discretion for determining how the test participation requirement should be factored in the State’s accountability 

system. 

In fact, the statute explicitly prohibits you from prescribing how 

the State factors the requirement into the system, at least as I 

read it; that your proposal requires States to take at least one of 

four prescribed actions against schools that missed the requirement. Your proposal also requires schools that missed the requirement to develop a plan to address the failure and requires school 

districts with large numbers of such schools to also develop an improvement plan. 

This may be indeed a laudable goal, but the law is a law, so let 

me ask you this question. Can you provide the committee the specific statutory language that gives you this authority? 

Secretary KING. Let me first say, Congressman, as a former high 

school social studies teacher, I appreciate the quoting of the Northwest Ordinance. It does not happen often. 

Mr. WALBERG. I am a Neanderthal, I guess. 

Secretary KING. No, no, no, I appreciate it and I want to say I 

strongly agree with your point on importance of the flexibility in 

this law around the design of the accountability system and in the 

design of the interventions which is, I think, also an important 

area of flexibility for States. 

On the question on participation rates, we often— 

Mr. WALBERG. What is your statutory authority? 

Secretary KING. Yeah, I just to make sure in your framing of the 

question. 

Mr. WALBERG. I have 23 seconds, so. 

Secretary KING. I will be quick. In the four options that are described in the regulations, one of them is for the State to determine 

how it will approach the enforcement. The other three are offered 

as means by which the State could enforce the 95 percent accountability requirements which is in the statute. And States could 

choose the fourth option, which is State-determined and that would 

go through peer review. So we were careful, as I have indicated before, to ensure that our regulations are consistent with the letter 

of the law— 

Mr. WALBERG. I still did not hear your specific statutory— 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

35 

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

Curbelo? 

Mr. CURBELO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 

Secretary, for being here this morning. I want to especially appreciate the Department’s focus on English language. It was a major 

priority for me and the reauthorization, and you have certainly 

made some comments with regards to ELL students here today, 

but I want to ask you today about students in foster care. The Department has been active on this topic in recent weeks and I have 

had two specific questions, the first on the proposed regulation and 

the second on the guidance issued this morning. 

The statute clearly lays out a process for school districts and 

child welfare agencies to develop an agreement for paying transportation costs for students in foster care who remain in their schools 

of origin. Contrary to that language, the proposed regulations require school districts to pay for transportation costs with no mention of the process established in the statute. Please explain why 

the Department ignored the statutory text and is proposing to require school districts to cover transportation costs. 

If you do not think the Department ignored the statutory language, let us know how this provision complies with the clear language in the statute. And again, I think this is an issue where the 

legislation, the intent is for States to have the flexibility to work 

this out with their own agencies, school districts, and child welfare 

agencies. 

Secretary KING. So, importantly, I think the foster youth provisions of the law are very important. And it is clear that foster 

youth are at risk and part of the reason they are at risk is because 

they are often moving between schools. And so the evidence is clear 

that students are better served when they can have educational 

stability or where there would have to be transitions that those 

transitions are smooth. And the guidance that was issued today we 

not only describe our interpretation of the law, but we also offer 

examples of best practice around the country, including places, 

States that have set up very clear dispute resolution processes, but 

where the guidance points us towards collaboration between the 

LEA, the school district, and the child welfare agency to both ensure that they are evaluating the best interest of the students, and 

then creating a reasonable plan for smooth transitions and transportation where necessary. 

In the proposed rule, we are looking for feedback and comment 

and we expect to get it and the guidance. Again, what we tried to 

do was point to exactly what you were describing, the need for 

LEAs and child welfare agencies to work collaboratively. The proposed rule offers some more specificity on processes to resolve those 

disputes. We are looking for feedback and input, and we certainly 

appreciate yours. 

Mr. CURBELO. So you believe that, ultimately, States will have 

that flexibility where the child welfare agencies and the school districts can collaborate and figure out amongst themselves how the 

transportation costs will be addressed? 

Secretary KING. I think the hardest question is if there is a dispute, ultimately, how will we ensure that the student has educational stability? And we try to offer a path in the regulation on 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

36 

which we are looking for feedback. And the guidance we try, just 

as you described, to underscore the importance of that collaborative 

relationship and also describe examples of effective dispute resolution processes that are in place around the country. 

Mr. CURBELO. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary, and I strongly encourage you to pay attention to the feedback and this comment period because I think it is pretty clear that all over this legislation, 

we have been focusing on State flexibility, trusting States and local 

communities to make the best decisions for these kids. And I think 

especially when it comes to kids in foster care, which we all want 

to make sure that they have access to a quality education, we want 

to give the States the opportunity to figure out the solutions that 

work best for the kids in those States and in those communities. 

So thank you again for your presence and your time here this 

morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Allen. 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Secretary. It is good to have you here this morning. 

Mr. Secretary, ESSA requires schools with one or more subgroups performing at or below the level of all students and any 

school identified in the State’s bottom 5 percent to be identified for 

targeted support. The statute then requires certain schools to be 

further identified for comprehensive support if they fail to adequately improve within ‘‘State-determined number of years.’’ And 

as has been mentioned several times before, ESSA also prohibits 

you from prescribing the methodology used by States to identify 

schools, yet your proposal requires schools I just described to be 

identified for comprehensive support within three years if they 

have not improved. 

How is this proposal consistent with the plain language of the 

statute which says the length of time is to be State-determined and 

the Secretary is prohibited from prescribing the identification 

methodology? 

Secretary KING. Well, here the question is what happens if a 

school has been identified for targeted support and the subgroups 

are not making progress, so it is a bit different from the original 

identification. 

States will need to develop a process for how they will respond 

when schools are not making progress with those subgroups and 

the intention is that States will intensify their State-selected interventions based on evidence to ensure that those subgroups improve 

their performance. 

Mr. ALLEN. But again, the questions was, it looks like we have 

two methodologies here, the law versus the rule. And I did not 

quite understand exactly, I know the States are responsible for 

dealing with this particular issue, but your rule applies that the 

Federal Government is responsible for dealing with this particular 

issue. There seems to be a conflict here. 

Secretary KING. I do not think so. I think the statute ultimately 

requires that States increase the intensity of the intervention when 

the intervention is not effective in improving subgroup performance 

and the regulations are trying to enforce that requirement of the 

statute. But again, these regulations are out for public comment. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

37 

This is a place where we are interested in feedback from States 

and districts as well as civil rights groups and others. 

Mr. ALLEN. And that is important because obviously Congress 

writes the laws and, as you mentioned earlier, and what has 

amazed me in my short time here is, where we have intent on a 

law, that somehow it gets totally misinterpreted by the time it gets 

to one of the Departments. So I think it is great to have you here 

this morning and it is great to have this discussion, but I also 

think that we definitely need to follow up on these conflicts with 

the staff and our staff to make sure that we implement this law 

the way it was intended. And I yield back. 

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

are recognized. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you, Mr. 

Secretary, for being here. And again, I applaud the chairman for 

holding this hearing, I think looking back at the 114th Congress, 

getting the ESSA done and signed into law I think is probably 

going to be viewed as one of the more unexpected pleasant surprises in a good way in terms of the accomplishment here. And as 

I am sure my colleagues have said, the action now has kind of migrated to the State level. And in Connecticut, there are working 

groups under the commissioner hard at work in terms of trying to, 

again, align State education policy with, again, the flexibility with 

some guidance from the Federal Government. So I just want to report to you that is full speed ahead in terms of what is going on 

there. 

One issue which I think is very important in the State of Connecticut is that as a result of desegregation lawsuits, Sheff v. 

O’Neal, Connecticut was, I think, very aggressive in terms of moving towards magnet schools as a solution to racial isolation, particularly in the city of Hartford, which I live about 17 minutes 

away from on the highway. And as the New York Times reported, 

there actually has been really encouraging progress made in terms 

of the magnet school model in terms of integrating—my daughter 

actually went to one of those schools that followed in the Sheff v. 

O’Neal, and I just can tell you that it was a life-changing experience. It is not something her parents pushed her into. She kind of 

found it on her own and so I personally would have liked to have 

seen us been a little more aggressive about helping promote magnet schools, particularly because the city of New London is now 

going all magnet and there is a provision that allowed transportation costs and some other expenses that make this still a bit of 

a challenge for local communities and States. 

And I am just sort of wondering, I never talked to you about your 

perspective on that and just sort of asked you how you see that approach, and at least the signals that the legislation sent out to be 

supportive. 

Secretary KING. I mean, I am very pleased with some of the adjustments that were made to the magnet school program and in 

ESSA. I think that will help make it easier for communities to take 

a magnet school’s approach. 

I would love to see us go further. That is why the President proposed the Stronger Together Initiative, which would be $120 million. That is in his 2017 budget to support locally led voluntary efCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

38 

forts around school diversity. And I think Hartford’s magnet school 

program is, in many ways, a great national model that folks should 

take a close look at, both quality of options that are being offered 

to families that are diverse and the two-way feature of the Hartford approach, that students are able to go from suburban communities into urban schools and from urban schools into suburban 

communities. I think that is a very promising approach. 

We are also looking at how we can use other grant programs to 

encourage, again, voluntary, locally led efforts. And my hope is that 

some States will use the school improvement flexibility that they 

have under ESSA to pursue school diversity strategies because we 

know they can significantly improve academic outcomes, graduation rates, particularly for the students that are most at risk. 

Mr. COURTNEY. I appreciate your last comment there which is 

that the batting average for these new models has not really just 

been about sort of the racial composition of the student body. It is 

also about academic achievement and a number of magnet schools 

score higher than any other either private or public high schools 

and K–8 schools in the State of Connecticut. So again, I just want 

to again tell you a lot of us are rooting for the Department to continue that work in terms of promoting what I really think is a solution to the future success of this country using the magnet school 

model. And with that, I would yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. Mr. Grothman? 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Thank you for coming over here. When you were 

here in February, I asked you a question about teacher licensure 

and, more importantly, about teacher evaluation. We mentioned 

that in the Students Success Act, we believe that we prohibited you 

from any involvement in teacher evaluation systems. 

At the time I asked you about it, I said, ‘‘Can we be confident 

now that those days are gone since that is what the new statute 

said?’’ And you said, ‘‘Yes, we are very clear that the law puts 

teacher evaluation in the hands of State and districts.’’ 

Nevertheless, you have now come back with a regulation that 

states that your Department requires States to establish the 

definitionary (sic) guidelines for defining ineffective teachers. The 

proposal also requires States to annually identify the percentage of 

teachers in each category with its ineffective definition. 

Now, just on the face of it, this looks completely contrary to what 

you told us in February, not to mention completely contrary to 

what is in the statute. 

What is your statutory authority for this proposal? And if there 

is no statutory proposal, please explain how you expect the State 

to meet this requirement without establishing a teacher evaluation 

system. 

Secretary KING. The statute requires States to provide information on equitable access to quality teachers. We require, in the regulation, for States to define those terms as they comply with statutory requirement to report on disproportionate access to those quality teachers. They could not report if they did not define those categories. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. So you are going to assure us that you have no 

concern about how quality teachers are defined? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

39 

Secretary KING. States are required to put forward— their definitions, and that would be a part of the— 

Mr. GROTHMAN. You are never going to question what their metric is? 

Secretary KING. The proposal that they will submit as part of the 

State plan goes to peer review, which is not the Department, but 

it is other States and experts who will engage in peer review of the 

State plan. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Does the State of Wisconsin have to worry, regardless of what they use for teacher evaluation, that you will ever 

question that? 

Secretary KING. Well, if they were not complying with the statute if they were not ensuring that students have equitable access 

to quality teaching. Yes, I would hope the future Department 

would ensure that the law is enforced. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. You are kind of dodging this a little bit here. 

The question is, okay, the State of Wisconsin says such and such 

is a quality teacher, the question is are you ever going to question 

the definition of a quality teacher as defined by the State of Wisconsin? 

Secretary KING. They have a set of terms that they have to define. For example, if they have teachers who are teaching outside 

of their license area, is it possible that in the future the Department might find that a State is evading their responsibility under 

the law to ensure equitable access to quality teaching? Yes, that is 

possible. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Obviously you collect tons of data, more data 

than I think you have any business constitutionally collecting, but 

nevertheless you do. 

As maybe you know, when I look at a lot of the problems in society, including problems of poor educational performance, I blame a 

lot of it at the breakdown of the family. And I just wonder when 

you collect data on all these students and you collect data on race, 

which I am not sure what that—do you collect data on family background of the kids? And if not, why not? 

Secretary KING. There may be an IES study in which those kinds 

of issues are looked at, but I do not believe that ESSA has requirements around that. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. I know it does not have requirements. I am saying in your tenure as Secretary, has there ever been a suggestion 

that maybe we ought to at least do a limited study on the family 

background of students and seeing if some family backgrounds are 

more conducive to educational achievement than others? 

Secretary KING. There may be IES studies that address that. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. I mean, you have just reams of data that you are 

collecting here. I just wonder whether you or anybody else in your 

Department has ever thought that might be an interesting topic to 

look into. 

Secretary KING. I will look at whether there was an IES study 

in that subject and I will be sure that we get that to you. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay, I yield the remainder of my time. 

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

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 

King, Mr. Secretary, for being here. We appreciate it very much. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

40 

Mr. King, what I wanted to talk about was what the Department 

of Education has proposed with respect to backend checks on the 

weighing of indicators for State accountability systems. 

The statute that was passed in ESSA requires the States to establish the criteria that the schools must make to exit certain identification categories, but after having my staff read your proposal 

and after I read some of your proposals, it just seems like they go 

well beyond the scope of the statute by requiring those criteria to 

include improvements on the State’s academic indicators. That appears to contradict what the statute’s prohibition was against the 

Secretary prescribing exit criteria. 

Could you explain how you envision States and school districts 

implementing this portion of the proposal? 

Secretary KING. Yeah, just to be clear again, we do not prescribe 

the weights or percentages for the indicators. The function of the 

backend checks is to ensure implementation of the statute, which 

requires that the academic indicators have substantial weight and 

then further requires that the academic indicators must have a 

much greater weight than the other indicators, so the backend 

checks are a way to do that. But as I have said, they are out for 

public comment and we look forward to reviewing the comment on 

those and I am sure you will get from States, from districts, from 

civil rights organizations, from parents, and others. 

Mr. CARTER. Again, I want to make sure that the Department is 

not overstepping their bounds from what we intended for it to be 

through this legislation. 

Can you assure me that the Department is not going to go contrary to what is in the statute? 

Secretary KING. Yes, we have been careful throughout this process to ensure that the regulations comply with the law. We also 

have been careful throughout this process to listen carefully to the 

feedback that we have received from stakeholders and will continue 

to do so. 

Mr. CARTER. So you have received the feedback? Are you continuing to receive the feedback? 

Secretary KING. We chose the areas for regulation and guidance 

based on feedback we received. We have had over 200 meetings, we 

have received comment from over 700 individuals and organizations. We held 2 public hearings in which there are over 100 folks 

who testified and we continue to gather feedback. 

Now, the accountability regulations are out and State plans and 

data reporting regulations are out for public comment. That public 

comment period closes in August and we will review the feedback 

that we have received. 

Mr. CARTER. Have you reviewed any of it yet? Do you have any 

indication of what are the concerns? 

Secretary KING. I mean, we had a very strong concern, particularly from the civil rights community and organizations that are focused on kids who are at risk, that enforcing the requirements in 

the law for what I would characterize as civil rights guardrails is 

critically important, including the language that says that the academic indicators must have much greater weight and substantial 

weight. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

41 

Mr. CARTER. Okay, I am just concerned, okay? I want to make 

sure that you are not overstepping the bounds by what we intended 

for it to be through this legislation and I want you to assure me 

and the committee that the Department’s proposals, that they align 

with the statute and that we are not going to have you back here 

trying to ask any more questions about what is going on. I do not 

want another example of the Department of Education overstepping their bounds. 

Secretary KING. I appreciate that. We are being very careful to 

ensure that the regulations that we propose comply with the law. 

Mr. CARTER. Okay, fair enough. Just full disclosure, I want to 

make sure we are on the same page here of what the intent was 

and what it is that you are doing. 

Secretary KING. Understood. Again, I want to underscore that we 

have been very careful that the regulations we proposed comply 

with the law. 

We also are being very careful to gather feedback and I want to 

make clear that these proposed accountability regulations are a 

draft that is currently out for feedback and we are going to listen 

carefully to the feedback we receive. 

Mr. CARTER. Okay, thank you, Dr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now I yield back. 

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

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your time and your testimony today. Building on my colleagues’ questioning, in particular the questioning by Mr. Allen and 

Mr. Carter, I just would reiterate what those others have said. 

I talk to educators and parents all the time. They are very concerned about the students’ learning environments and are very attentive to this new law that we have passed, the ESSA. And they 

are skeptical in many ways because they do not believe that even 

though the law was written in such a way with such plain language and unambiguous language, that we will be able to implement it in a way that was intended. 

That government agencies tend to take liberties with whatever 

law is passed by Congress and we have seen that up and down the 

chain, not just in the Department of Education, but in other departments as well, in other agencies as well. So there is a bit of 

skepticism here and I am wondering, you have indicated that you 

have got the regulations out right now for comment. When you 

have completed those, are you prepared to come back in here with 

your final draft of those regulations to review them with us? 

Secretary KING. I mean, I will certainly make myself available 

for committee meetings like this one. I think of this as a collaborative effort. I believe the law was passed through a collaborative 

effort between bipartisan leadership and Congress and the President and the Department, and we want to continue that collaboration. 

Mr. BISHOP. In good faith, I think that is a wise position to take 

and one that I think is good for this committee as well as all of 

us have a sense of skepticism as to whether or not the law that 

we passed is the law that would be implemented. 

I have confidence that you are here today in good faith and I look 

forward to further dialogue. I had one specific question as well with 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

42 

regard to the ESSA, Mr. Secretary. It requires States to include the 

4-year adjusted cohort graduation rate as an indicator in their accountability system. The statute also requires States to report annual data on the 4-year adjusted cohort graduation rate. 

The statute does not, however, require States to use the graduation rate when calculating which high schools are identified for 

comprehensive support based on low graduation rates. The statute 

leaves the calculation of the graduation rates for identification purposes, as Mr. Carter had indicated, earlier to the States. 

In addition, as you know, the statute prohibits you in particular 

from prescribing the specific methodology for identifying schools. 

How is your proposal that we discussed today that has been outlined consistent with the plain language, the unambiguous language of the statute in the prohibition against prescribing methodologies? 

Secretary KING. The key with graduation rates is to have a graduation rate indicator that is present in all schools and the only 

graduation rate indicator rate present in all schools as required by 

ESSA is the 4-year graduation rate. That said the regulation provides for States’ ability and their plan to create exceptions for 

schools that might serve new arrival English learners, schools that 

might serve students with very significant severe disabilities, 

schools that might serve students who dropped out and are now returning to school. 

But again, the 4-year graduation rate is the rate that is required 

for all schools to report under ESSA. 

Mr. BISHOP. You believe when you are talking about the inception that you are speaking of—give you, despite the fact that there 

is a prohibition against prescribing methodologies, that fits within 

that exception that you are speaking of? 

Secretary KING. Yes, and we are not prescribing the methodology, but we are using a data point that is available for all schools 

as the starting place for the State plan. 

Mr. BISHOP. Okay, thank you, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Chairman, I 

yield back. 

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

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Secretary, when you 

testified before the committee in February, you said, ‘‘The law 

rightly shifts responsibility for developing strategies to support the 

highest need students in schools to State and local decision-makers 

and away from the one-size-fits-all mandates of No Child Left Behind, and it creates opportunities for States to reclaim the goal of 

a rigorous, well-rounded education for every child.’’ 

I could not agree with your words more at that point and I appreciate hearing that perspective, yet your proposal would require 

State accountability systems to provide a single summative rating 

for each school. 

How is this proposal not a one-size-fits-all mandate that will stifle State efforts to reclaim the goal of, your words, a ‘‘rigorous, 

well-rounded education’’? And can you commit to upholding your 

original commitment to this committee when you publish the final 

rule or are you veering away from that original promise that you 

made? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

43 

Secretary KING. We believe that the draft rule reflects that commitment. Again, we are going to take comment and try to respond 

to the comment that we receive. 

On the single summative rating, States have flexibility with how 

they would approach that. They could use an A–F approach as 

some States do today. They could use a numerical index as some 

States do today or they could use a categorical approach as many 

States do today. 

They will need such an approach in order to identify the bottom 

5 percent of schools clearly, but we also require that States provide 

information to parents and teachers about all of the accountability 

indicators so there will be robust information about all of the accountability indicators. And this is a place, again, where we will 

take public comment and try to be responsive to the comments we 

receive. But it is clear that in order for the law to work, parents 

and educators and the community need to have a clear understanding of which schools are struggling and a need of more support and which schools are excelling and can be models of best 

practice. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I think the intent of Congress was very clear 

and, in the end, this is very bipartisan, as you know, as we finished. 

It tends to work that way in that process here through refinement and I think at all costs, we want to avoid a cookie cutter, a 

one size fits all. Does that really describe what No Child Left Behind became, especially in the outer years beyond the authorization 

time for it when it was allowed to continue? And we really, really 

need to make sure that we are providing that type of flexibility. 

And I think it really comes down to, and I have talked about this 

among my colleagues here, it is a question of trust and, in the end, 

members of Congress demonstrated in a bipartisan way, bicameral 

way, which is really unusual these days, a trust of the States and 

the local governing boards. And we expect that you will do the 

same thing and that your department will do the same thing to 

have that trust. 

I wonder, the recent issue came to my attention. Last week, your 

accreditation staff announced it was recommending to terminate 

the Federal recognition of the Accrediting Council of Independent 

Colleges and Schools, and the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity is meeting right now to decide 

their independent recommendations. It is somewhat related, a little 

bit outside the ball park here today, but I just wanted to take the 

opportunity to ask you on this since you are here and I appreciate 

you being here. 

Now, these actions are only recommendations. However, as you 

have the ultimate authority to decide the fate of ACICS, as you 

know, the ACICS is one of the Nation’s largest accreditors responsible for accrediting approximately 250 schools, serving 320,000 

students, and terminating the recognition of an accreditor this 

large would be unprecedented. And, therefore, I am concerned that 

the Department is ill-prepared to respond to the potential impacts 

of this move. 

Is the Department prepared with a plan to assist goals if they 

lose accreditation? And does the Department have the capacity 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

44 

available to process a change of accreditation requests for schools 

that seek alternative accreditation? 

Secretary KING. So as you indicated, there is a potential that I 

would hear an appeal in the ACICS case, so I cannot comment on 

the specifics of ACICS. I will say that the time that the recommendation was made by Department staff, we posted information for the institutions and for students about potential consequences. 

There is a process over the next several months for deliberation 

by Masiki for an appeals process and then there is a final agency 

determination on an accreditor, there is an 18-month period in 

which schools can seek an alternative accreditor and the information we posted provides details on that. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Should this go into a final recommendation by 

you then, you would certainly allow the schools to give him the sufficient time to find a new accreditor to make that transition. 

Secretary KING. Yes, we believe that schools that are doing a 

good job by their students will be able to manage transitioning to 

another creditor in that 18-month period any time an accreditor 

were to lose its authority, not just specific to ACICS. But we can 

certainly have staff follow up with you on that information that we 

will provide. 

Mr. THOMPSON. That would be very good. I would love to talk offline with you about how schools are doing great by their students 

but some are having problems with their accreditors. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. All members have had an opportunity to engage in the discussion. I want 

to thank you again, Mr. Secretary, for your time here today and 

your engagement with each of the members. 

I would underscore that there is a theme here that I am sure 

was not lost and that is that we put a lot of effort, bipartisan effort, 

a lot of struggle as you mentioned and included in the administration in getting the language of the statute very, very clear. And so 

we will continue to be watching. We would like to stay engaged 

with your staff as we go for it to do everything we can to make sure 

that the regulations that the Department is required to publish are 

not just sort of, like, semi-consistent with but exactly consistent 

with the lettering and intent of the law. So thank you very much. 

We are going to let you go back to work and start taking a look 

at all that feedback from those regulations and we thank you very 

much for being here today. 

Secretary KING. Thank you. 

Chairman KLINE. We will be seating the second panel here momentarily. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, can we submit to the record a letter 

from the Tri-Caucus on accountability to the Secretary? 

Chairman KLINE. Without objection. 

[Recess] 

Chairman KLINE. Welcome to our second panel today. It is now 

my pleasure to introduce our distinguished witnesses and I recognize Mr. Guthrie to introduce our first witness. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. Today 

I am going to introduce the Kentucky Commissioner of Education, 

Steven Pruitt, as a witness for today’s hearing. In September of 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

45 

2015, the Kentucky Board of Education unanimously voted to hire 

Steven L. Pruitt as Kentucky’s sixth Commissioner Of Education. 

Commissioner Pruitt came to Kentucky with extensive background in standard assessment accountability. He started as a high 

school chemistry teacher in Fayetteville, in Tyrone, Georgia, and 

later served as a science and math program manager and director 

of academic standards with the Georgia Department of Education, 

and he was associate State superintendent for assessment accountability. 

Most recently, Commissioner Pruitt served as a senior vice president for ACHIEVE, a national nonpartisan, nonprofit education reform organization based in Washington. He is a native of Georgia, 

but he is a proud Kentuckian. And Commissioner Pruitt holds a 

bachelor’s degree in chemistry from North Georgia College, a master’s in science from West Georgia, and a doctorate from Albany 

University. 

I think he is sitting next to an Alabama Crimson Tide graduate 

so we will see how that works. Commissioner Pruitt and his wife 

are parents of two children and their son attends University of Colorado and their daughter is a high school senior attending public 

schools in Kentucky. And welcome to Washington, thank you. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you, Mr. Guthrie. I will continue now 

with the rest of the introductions. We would like to avoid any conflict down there. 

Ms. Cassie Harrelson serves as a math teacher on a special assignment with the exceptional student services for Aurora public 

schools in Aurora, Colorado. In this role, she built special education 

teachers’ capacity to increase student math achievement through a 

student-centered instructional coaching model. 

Ms. Harrelson also serves as an affiliate faculty at Regis University where she instructs teachers on using formative assessments 

to support linguistically diverse students in their language acquisition. 

Ms. Daria Hall serves as the interim vice president of government affairs and communications with the Education Trust in 

Washington D.C. Previous to this, Ms. Hall served as the organization’s director of K–12 policy development and worked as an analyst for the Texas Legislative Council in the Milwaukee office of 

U.S. Senator Herb Kohl, so quite a bit of geographical movement 

there. 

And Dr. David Schuler serves as a superintendent for a township 

high school in District 214, blue ribbon high school district, located 

in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Prior to this, he served as a Wisconsin teacher, coach, student activities and athletic director, principal, and superintendent. 

Dr. Schuler also serves as president for AASA, the School Superintendents Association. Welcome, all. 

Now, I ask our witnesses to please raise your right hand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Chairman KLINE. Let the record reflect the witnesses answered 

in the affirmative. Just a reminder in our lighting system. We will 

keep track of it right here. When you start your testimony, you will 

have a green light. When you get down to after 4 minutes, a yellow 

light will come on, please start thinking about wrapping up. When 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

46 

a red light comes on, please wrap up as expeditiously as you can. 

And then when you finish, members will have 5 minutes to ask 

questions and engage in the discussion. 

We will start with Dr. Pruitt. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN L. PRUITT, COMMISSIONER OF 

EDUCATION, KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Mr. PRUITT. Chairman Kline, Representative Scott, and members 

of the committee, I would like to thank you for inviting me to testify today on the recent efforts to implement the Every Student 

Succeeds Act. 

As chief State school officer for the Commonwealth of Kentucky, 

I am excited about the future of education in our State under this 

new law, any opportunity to build on the significant progress that 

Kentucky has made to date. 

We have already started that work by engaging on a broad spectrum of education stakeholders. We have held 11 regional town hall 

meetings and one virtual town hall with a total participation in excess of 3,000 people. 

Kentuckians have told us what they value in their schools and 

how they define schools’ success. We have listened and we are 

using those comments to shape our work under the ESSA. 

The alterative promised by the ESSA is a welcomed departure 

from the prescriptive nature of No Child Left Behind and I appreciate the continued focus on closing the achievement gaps. 

In Kentucky, we are working to move all children to higher levels 

of learning while also determining the root cause of achievement 

gaps which we believe stem from opportunity gaps and access to 

rigorous, high-quality learning opportunities. I commend the U.S. 

Department of Education for its quick response in drafting regulations and releasing them in a timely manner for public comment, 

but when one examines these regulations, they contain so many restrictions and requirements, State choices remain severely limited. 

The proposed regulations stifle creativity, innovation, and sovereignty of States to govern their own education policies. Additionally, the volume of complex regulations are in direct opposition to 

Kentuckians’ desire for a simple system that provides a broad view 

of scope performance. 

Implementing a new accountability system is a monumental 

task. Despite our best efforts, I am concerned about the timeline 

and the State’s ability to implement a new quality system that 

takes full advantage of ESSA. 

While we understand accountability under the new law would 

start at the beginning of 2017–2018, the proposed regulations 

would require using data available in 2016–2017 generated under 

the current accountability system to identify schools for comprehensive support and improvement, possibly even prior to U.S. Ed’s approval of the new system. As a result, schools will not accurately 

be identified. 

We would suggest continuing the support, the concurrent priority 

schools, through the 2017–2018 school year and identifying new 

schools for the 2018–2019 school year based on the measures of the 

new system. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

47 

I believe that is the intent of ESSA. While the proposed regulations claim to replace NCOB’s narrow definition of school success, 

requiring a single summative score goes beyond what the statute 

calls for. 

The proposed regulations limit States’ ability to take a dashboard 

approach which is broader, fairer, and a more accurate representation of school performance and more likely to lead to school improvement. 

In Kentucky, we found that a summative score leads to ranking 

and creates an unhealthy sense of competition rather than collaboration that supports school improvement. We also found in some 

instances it becomes more about adults chasing points and trying 

to game the system to manage the appearance of performance, 

rather than actual performance. 

Finally, I am concerned that the U.S. Ed’s recent regulatory proposal in Title I supplement not supplant will exceed the statutory 

authority under ESSA and will promote harmful consequences for 

students. So when the Department publishes its proposed rule of 

supplement not supplant, I urge you to review it closely and encourage that it informs and conforms to congressional intent and 

avoids the unintended negative consequence promoted by the Department’s earlier proposals in this area. 

There are many other points in the proposed regulations that I 

have addressed in my written comments and that Kentucky will be 

addressing in its formal comments submitted to U.S. Ed. Now more 

than ever, what States need to implement ESSA is honest two-way 

communication, consistency, and to be trusted to make good decisions. 

We need a commonsense approach that supports a quality system of assessments, accountability, and school improvement measures that will be implemented with fidelity and will promote doing 

what is right for students. However, a compliance mentality prevails. 

For example, even though our NCOB waiver allows Kentucky to 

give a no reference test in science, recently U.S. Ed told us that 

the science test was not aligned with the current—required to give 

a science test not aligned with current academic standards and the 

poor performance levels that are not truly reflective of student 

learning or we must face consequences in order to meet the compliance element. 

I could not in good conscience comply with this and as a result, 

we have been placed on condition for our Title I, Part A, and IDEA 

Part B Federal fiscal year 2016 grant awards all because we wanted to do what was right for students and not waste money on a 

meaningless test. 

We have now quality tests that are scheduled to be implemented 

in the same year as the ESSA. Kentucky is committed to fully realizing the congressional intent of ESSA. 

If this is all true and this represents a new day in education for 

America, States must have the support to take action based on 

quality and what is best for students and move away from compliance mentality. 

The Commonwealth of Kentucky looks forward to revised regulations that empower States with the freedom to plan, innovate, deCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

48 

sign, and implement quality education systems that will ensure opportunities for all students and promote the pillars of equity, 

achievement, integrity within the education policy in Kentucky. 

As a final reminder, quality implementation is critical and I 

would remind you that no great education initiative ever failed in 

the vision stage. It failed in the implementation stage. 

[The statement of Mr. Pruitt follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

49 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 7 here 20458.007
50 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 8 here 20458.008
51 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 9 here 20458.009
52 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 10 here 20458.010
53 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 11 here 20458.011
54 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 12 here 20458.012
55 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 13 here 20458.013
56 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 14 here 20458.014
57 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 15 here 20458.015
58 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 16 here 20458.016
59 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. Ms. Harrelson, you are recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF CASSIE HARRELSON, MATH TEACHER, 

AURORA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, AURORA, COLORADO 

Ms. HARRELSON. Okay, thank you, Chairman Kline, and members of the committee, for inviting me to join you today. My name 

is Cassie Harrelson and I am currently a math teacher on a special 

assignment working with special education teachers in Aurora public schools in Colorado. 

In my role, I am in classrooms daily, collaborating with teachers 

to best support students with disabilities. My entire career in education has been spent working with students who are behind their 

peers on grade level academic standards. 

I have also worked in diverse environments from Aspen, one of 

the State’s top performing to Aurora, which will enter its fourth 

year of a priority improvement plan later this summer. 

Students at my school district speak over a 130 different languages and our free and reduced lunch is at 71 percent. 

Every child, regardless of family income, ethnicity, or home language deserves to attend a school with opportunity. This belief is 

what drives me daily. It is also why I am here today to speak on 

the promise of ESSA and not only for our students in Colorado, but 

across the Nation. 

NCOB had its strengths, such as the use of disaggregated data 

to help problem-solve around closing achievement gaps, but it was 

a one-size-fits-all approach that did not work for my students. 

The passage of ESSA last December offered a new promise, an 

explicit shift from the top-down NCOB style decision-making to 

bottom-up State and local control. Finally, educators closest to the 

students they teach would determine how to best help students 

succeed. ESSA offered flexibility at the local and State level and required engaging stakeholders to assess community assets and challenges to drive score improvement. We were also promised relief 

from NCOB’s excessive focus on standardized testing that was not 

timely or meaningful to educators or students. 

In order to ensure the appropriate intersection of local, State, 

and Federal policy that is best for our students, all stakeholders 

must be engaged, including educators, students, parents, and community members. 

As strong as I feel the legislation is about giving local leaders 

back their voice and the accountability process, I am worried that 

extensive areas dictated under the proposed Federal regulations 

take away my voice. For example, the accountability regulations 

tell us that Colorado must have a summative rating system with 

three levels of proficiency overall and with each subgroup of students. I know this requirement is nowhere in the law and something we were supposed to decide at the State level. 

The proposed regulations also seem to upset the balance to find 

legislation and return the focus to standardized tests by diminishing the importance of the student and school support indicator. 

We shift back to a failing system that is overly focused on tests as 

opposed to truly helping students achieve. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

60 

As an educator in a school with a high number of English language learners, I am also concerned about the proposed regulations 

that set expectations for attainment of English language proficiency within a period of time after students’ identification. This 

timeframe should be determined by educators, not an arbitrary 

number. 

In Aurora, some English learner students arrive with comprehensive educational backgrounds, but some arrive with interrupted or limited formal schooling. We must respect educator discretion on this issue. 

Finally, I am concerned about the proposed regulations that dictate consequences for districts that fail to meet the 95 percent requirement for testing. While the law retains the requirements to 

ensure that students are participating in the test, the proposed regulations go beyond by dictating the actual consequences that 

schools must face. 

Instead of punishing districts, we should be helping districts find 

solutions to solve the lower participation rate and our assessments. 

And again, how to handle lower test participation rates was supposed to be determined at the State level and once again the Department is taking away that opportunity. 

I ask that you honor your commitment to our students and ESSA 

by respecting the legislation to include educator voice at the local 

and State level as we know our students best. It is time to get 

those with actual teaching experience the opportunity to have a 

say. 

This work ahead of us is extensive but imperative so that every 

child, regardless of family income, ethnicity, or home language has 

an opportunity to attend a great public school and succeed. 

[The statement of Ms. Harrelson follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

61 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 17 here 20458.017
62 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 18 here 20458.018
63 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 19 here 20458.019
64 

Mr. ROKITA. [Presiding] Thank you for that. I realize by the look 

in some of the witnesses’ faces that I probably should introduce 

myself. I am Todd Rokita, chairman of what we colloquially call the 

kindergarten to 12th grade subcommittee on education, so welcome 

to each of you. 

Ms. Hall, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF DARIA HALL, INTERIM VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS AND COMMUNICATIONS, THE EDUCATION TRUST, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. HALL. Thank you, Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Scott, 

and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to 

share my perspective on implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act. 

This perspective is informed by the Education Trust’s long history of working alongside educators, advocates, and policymakers 

to close gaps and opportunity and achievement. Let me begin as we 

always do at the Ed Trust with some data. 

In the year since we have had Federal requirements for annual 

testing, full public reporting, and serious accountability for the results of every group of children, results in the national assessment 

of education progress and high school graduation rates are up, especially for low-income students and students of color. 

Now, of course, policies themselves do not close gaps and they do 

not raise achievement. Only the hard work of educators, students, 

and families can do that. But smart policy is a source of urgency 

to address problems that would otherwise languish and it is critical 

that we do not lose that urgency because, despite gains in the data, 

the data is also abundantly clear that far too many young people 

are still not getting the quality education they need and deserve. 

So what does this all mean for ESSA implementation? In short, 

we need to pick up the pace of improvement, not back off. Thankfully, the law you crafted contains a number of important levers 

that can help with that, including statewide standards and assessments aligned with the demands of college and the workplace, accountability systems that expect more progress from groups of students who have been behind and prompt action when any group is 

struggling, and rich public reporting on academic outcomes, and opportunities to learn for all groups of students. 

Implementing these levers must be done in a way that is responsive to unique State and local contexts and in a way that builds 

on the insights of educators and communities. But the need for 

State and local decision-making does not mean that from now on 

the U.S. Department of Education should simply recede into the 

background. Indeed the Department has the authority and the responsibility to ensure that the equity goals of ESSA are honored. 

I will note here that the consensus reached on the assessment 

regulations during the negotiated rulemaking process is an important example of both confidence in the regulatory process and the 

need for clarification with the statute. 

Looking to the Department’s proposed regulations on accountability, public reporting, and State plans, they clarify and bolster 

the law’s equity provisions in many important ways including the 

requirement that all indicators in the accountability system be deCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

65 

segregated by each group of students so schools cannot sweep the 

performance of some students under the rug; clarity that supergroups cannot take the place of individual student groups so 

progress among one group cannot match stagnation or declines for 

another, the prioritization of academic outcomes so the main purpose of schooling stays in focus; the expectation of full participation 

in State assessments so schools cannot return to the old practice 

of opting lower performers out on test day; and the requirement 

that all schools receive a summative rating so parents get an at a 

glance view of school performance. 

Now, it is important here to dispel this emerging narrative that 

we can have either summative ratings or rich public reporting 

through dashboards, but not both. That is simply not true. 

Summative ratings can and should exist alongside rich public reporting of all of the data that goes into the ratings and measures 

beyond those ratings, too. 

There are also areas where the proposed regs must be improved. 

For example, the definition of consistent underperformance for subgroups is essential to assuring that struggling students get the 

support they need, but some of the options for this definition undermine the expectation that when any group and any school is not 

making process, those students must get support. Instead, the option signal that it is okay to act only in some schools where students are struggling and leave students and others to languish. 

The importance of rules to clarify and bolster ESSA requirements 

has been made clear. In recent months, States have begun their 

implementation efforts. Already, there have been suggestions that 

would undermine the intent of the law, such as including indicators 

that cannot be disaggregated or using supergroups in place of individual student groups. 

We will work alongside partners in the business, civil rights, and 

disability communities to remain vigilant in ensuring the equity 

provisions of the law are upheld and we urge leaders in Congress 

and the Department to do the same. Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Hall follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

66 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 20 here 20458.020
67 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 21 here 20458.021
68 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 22 here 20458.022
69 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 23 here 20458.023
70 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 24 here 20458.024
71 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 25 here 20458.025
72 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 26 here 20458.026
73 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you, Ms. Hall. Mr. Schuler—excuse me, Dr. 

Schuler, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID R. SCHULER, SUPERINTENDENT, TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 214, ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, ILLINOIS 

Mr. SCHULER. Thank you very much. I would like to extend my 

deep appreciation to Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Scott, and 

the entire Committee on Education and Workforce for your tireless 

work to complete the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 

This new law holds States and school districts accountable while 

still allowing significant flexibility. Tight on goals and loose on 

means is a well-researched philosophy that correlates positively to 

student achievement. 

Under SO, the role of the Federal Government is one of supporting and strengthening our Nation’s public schools, not prescribing and dictating to us, and as it realigns the balance of authority so that the Federal Government can maintain it is appropriate limited focus on closing achievement gaps while empowering 

State and local education leaders to make the day-to-day decisions 

that most directly impact the school systems we lead. 

State and local education agencies now have an opportunity to 

examine schools with the inclusion of a nonacademic indicator. 

This represents a dramatic shift from the NCOB focus on snapshot 

testing to a more comprehensive, well-rounded system to assess 

school quality. In February, at the National Conference on Education, AASA, the school superintendents’ association, launched a 

new research-based multi-metric initiative to redefine what it 

means to be college and career ready, called ‘‘Redefining Ready.’’ 

That could have never happened under the waiver process or 

NCLB. 

Under ESSA, you have given us permission to dream and lead 

and transform public education in this country, and we will do just 

that. I applaud the Department’s proposed regulation leaving the 

end size determination to the States. 

I would say that I am concerned about the proposed regulation 

regarding the 2-year timeframe for States to identify consistently 

underperforming schools as statutory language in ESSA states that 

decision should be made at the State level. 

It is my belief that the determination of a timeframe should be 

made as part of a broader context of the State accountability system. 

I am equally concerned about proposed regulation 201.8 that requires a State plan to include one summative rating for at least 

three distinct rating categories for each school. 

ESSA does not require each school to be rated by a single indicator. States should be allowed to create balanced accountability 

systems and move away from reducing our schools and teachers 

down to one single letter or number. 

Another concern I would note is the proposed regulation that 

would require States to identify schools in need of support or improvement for the start of the 2017–2018 school year. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

74 

States are just developing their implementation plans now. How 

can schools be held accountable this coming school year for metrics 

not yet developed. 

I would suggest that it is unfair to students, teachers, parents, 

and our communities to be judged and rated by unknown metrics. 

While I am very pleased that the proposed regulations did not attempt to define much more than regarding the weight of academic 

indicators and nonacademic indicators, I do have a concern with 

the extent to which the proposed regulations include restrictions 

that indirectly ascribe weights to those academic indicators. 

While I strongly support the right of students in foster care to 

have transportation to their school of origin, I do oppose the proposed regulation regarding the transportation of foster children. 

The Department’s proposal deems that when it comes to transporting children in foster care, if the child welfare agency in the 

district cannot reach an agreement, it is the district’s responsibility 

to cover transportation costs. In these challenging fiscal times, it 

is deeply troubling that this proposal would create a new financial 

burden for many districts, especially in a manner that at such direct odds with what ESSA requires. 

ESSA’s carefully crafted statutory language requires a collaborative approach between child welfare agencies and LEAs, and provides that if there are additional costs for transporting students in 

foster care, the district will provide transportation for the child 

under three specified conditions. I believe the proposed regulation 

is in direct conflict with the statutory language of ESSA that was 

negotiated in a very collaborative and purposeful manner, and I 

would suggest that there is really no need for the regulation as the 

statutory language is very clear. 

I would note that I have strong reservations about the Department’s proposal regarding supplement not supplant. 

I am concerned that the proposal being advanced by the Department blurs the lines between two distinct but equally important 

statutory provisions. Supplement and not supplant and comparability, both target at maintaining the integrity of Title I dollars. 

Finally, I would urge the Department to use restraint in issuing 

regulations, but playing a critical role in supporting State and local 

implementation of assets through the sharing of best practices and 

technical assistance. 

The sheer volume of new practices, programs, and approaches 

that State and local education agencies will be considering and 

adopting means that States, schools, and school districts will need 

a clearinghouse to share what is working, what is not working, and 

what we learned along the way. Imagine the Department being a 

repository for what is working in our Nation’s schools in regards 

to career pathways, coding, closing the achievement gap, grade 

level readiness, a digital curricular transformation, resource efficiencies, and other issues facing U.S. schools. 

America’s teachers and school district leaders will not let you 

down. I applaud the committee’s work on ESSA and am confident 

that our public education system will be better as a result of the 

Every Student Succeeds Act being the law of the land. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Schuler follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

75 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 27 here 20458.027
76 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 28 here 20458.028
77 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 29 here 20458.029
78 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 30 here 20458.030
79 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you, Dr. Schuler. I would like to start with 

you, recognizing myself for 5 minutes. You are hitting on your last 

comments there on something that I was trying to get out of Dr. 

King, but I myself ran out of time in the questioning, and that is 

using SNS as a backdoor to comparability to come in. You mentioned that just now in your testimony, Can you go into some more 

detail there about your concerns? Because you remember that in 

the Every Student Succeeds Act, we specifically said our comparability formulas or intentions were not changing from the old 

law to the new law, yet they want to change comparability it 

seems. 

Mr. SCHULER. It is a concern because comparability allowed us 

the opportunity to not have to focus intently on ensuring salaries, 

were included as part of the supplement and not supplant. 

Mr. ROKITA. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. SCHULER. And so we cannot dictate who applies to our 

schools. And so if that regulation ends up really happening, the end 

result of that will end up being forced transfers and that is a huge 

concern. 

Mr. ROKITA. Forced transfers because isn’t it true that the most 

significant part of any school budget is personnel cost? 

Mr. SCHULER. Absolutely. 

Mr. ROKITA. So if you are going to balance that through comparability, then you are transferring teachers from one school to 

the other? 

Mr. SCHULER. Correct, which may not be a good fit for that 

school. 

Mr. ROKITA. Why not? 

Mr. SCHULER. Because you could have a school, let’s say, when 

I was superintendent in central Wisconsin, I had a school that was 

an elementary school, Title I, focused completely around technology. The skill sets of the teachers in that school looked very, 

very different from a traditional elementary school. 

Mr. ROKITA. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. SCHULER. And as a result, the people that applied to be in 

that school setting had a very specific skill set. If I would have 

been forced to ensure that the salaries of all of my elementary 

schools for Title and non-Title would have been the same, I would 

have been forced to move people with the skill set I needed in that 

school out— 

Mr. ROKITA. Right, or hurting the Title I students that are supposed to be helped by all this. 

Mr. SCHULER. Correct. 

Mr. ROKITA. So your testimony is that the Department’s proposal 

here is actually going to—it has a strong potential of hurting lowincome students that Title I is supposed to help? 

Mr. SCHULER. It definitely could. 

Mr. ROKITA. Yeah. Ms. Harrelson, thank you for your testimony 

as well. Ms. Hall talks about the ability to have summative indications as well as the retrieval of rich data as well. You were sort 

of negative on the summative aspect of the data collection. Can you 

go into more detail there? Because I agree with you. 

Ms. HARRELSON. So you are asking on data collected on students? 

Mr. ROKITA. Yes, and use your microphone, please. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

80 

Ms. HARRELSON. Okay, you know, I think that we have to be cautious of the data that we are looking at, and a lot of times that 

when we are looking at some of the summative measures, they are 

not fully aligned to what is actually happening in our schools because of the nature of some of the standardized assessments that 

we were using so— 

Mr. ROKITA. Could you give examples? 

Ms. HARRELSON. Some examples? 

Mr. ROKITA. Yeah. 

Ms. HARRELSON. Well, if you look at some of the assessment 

items that are used on tests that were allowed to create standardized assessments, they do not always get at that rich understanding that we really want to see that kids are showing, so I support, as a teacher, more of a formative local level type of assessment where teachers can really use that to guide next instructional 

steps. And I just always err to being a little bit cautious that a lot 

of the data that we receive from these assessments really cannot 

be used to guide instruction and improve outcomes, so we have to 

be really cautious of too much emphasis on that. 

Mr. SCHULER. Thank you, Ms. Harrelson. Dr. Pruitt, you were 

critical in your testimony of the accountability proposal proffered 

by the Department. Do you want to go into any more detail there? 

One point specifically, were you witness to the—not a witness on, 

but were you witness to the first panel with Dr. King? 

Mr. PRUITT. I was. 

Mr. ROKITA. Do you want to comment on that panel at all in 

terms of accountability systems or supplement versus supplant or 

anything else you observed? 

Mr. PRUITT. I think it would be fair to say that his interpretation 

of some of his regs are different than ours. I think— 

Mr. ROKITA. ‘‘Ours’’ being who? 

Mr. PRUITT. Ours in Kentucky in particular. Of course, we have 

been supported by the Council of Chief State School Officers as 

well. 

We have had a lot of conversations but for us around the accountability in particular, it is easy to say, of course, 2017–2018 

will be the first year because that is what ESSA requires. However, 

actually the fact that we have to identify schools in 2016–2017 for 

2017–2018 means that you actually are perpetuating the old system for at least another year. 

We in Kentucky actually have two schools that because they 

were caught in that same issue when our waiver went through, we 

have two schools that are at the same time listed in our top 5 percent and bottom 5 percent because the systems were significantly 

enough different. And what it does is it creates a distrust of the 

system itself which means that people really do not pay attention 

and we do not see the kind of movement that we really need to see. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you and final question. Do you have any reason to believe that Dr. King or the Federal Department of Education know you or your kids better than you do? 

Mr. PRUITT. Absolutely not. My kids are my kids. 

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Scott, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess this is for everybody. I just wanted to know if there is any situation where it would 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

81 

be good policy to withhold school improvement resources and technical assistance to help improve a school just because a school is 

actually improving one school climate equality indicator, but is still 

failing to perform for the children? Should we be able to withhold 

school improvement resources? 

Anybody think that we ought to be able to withhold school improvement resources just because they may be improving on one, 

but failing on many others? 

Ms. Hall, on the participation rate the statute requires a meaningful factor. Assessment participation rates requires States to 

meaningfully factor in assessment participation rates for their accountability systems. 

How do you require a school-level consequence if they miss their 

participation rate? 

Ms. HALL. Absolutely. I think it is important to remember why 

that requirement is there in the first place, because of the value 

of the statewide annual assessments is to provide a common measuring stick that applies for all students across classrooms, schools, 

and districts. 

If we do not have full participation either because students are 

opting out or because, as history has shown, schools are opting out 

low performers on test day, we undermine the value and credibility 

of that information. 

When it comes to ensuring that test participation is clear in the 

school accountability system, it can happen in a number of ways, 

including making that clear in the rating as a school that was previously going to get, for example, an A could become a B. There are 

options that are allowed for States, but I believe that it is incredibly important to make sure that the value of the information in 

the accountability system is not undermined by having only some 

of the students participate in the assessment and if there is low 

participation, that must be clear. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Mr. Pruitt, you have been working on accountability equality and equity and made the point that just calculating a summative score does not spur improvement. How can 

you use—well, two things. One, how do you ascertain the bottom 

5 percent that have to be addressed and how do you use the assessment to actually spur improvement? 

Mr. PRUITT. So I would say to your second question first, the reason I am in support of a dashboard is that it actually allows us to 

desegregate what I would consider school behavior, so we 

disaggregated student achievement in the past with No Child Left 

Behind and that was absolutely fantastic. In doing so, we allowed 

schools to sort of hide other things, in particular not guaranteeing 

a whole, well-rounded education for all students. So for me, the 

dashboard allows us to actually take a look across. 

And I realize that with our school report cards we have had extra 

data other than the summative score, but in Kentucky, people do 

not look past the summative score. They look at that and sure they 

can say you are better than 80 percent of the other schools, but 

what is it about that really means that you need to be improving? 

And for me, a dashboard really casts a spotlight on assuring that 

we are actually focusing on the right things. It is more of a laserlike focus to ensure that we actually see improvement as opposed 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

82 

to a scattershot approach. As to the bottom 5 percent, this is where 

I think the States actually meet that opportunity for us to be able 

to make that determination. 

For us, I have got 166 people on eight different committees who 

are focused on building a completely new system. And part of that 

is us determining how we would actually identify that bottom 5 

percent in a way that holds people’s feet to the fire, that ensures 

that kids are going to graduate literate, numerate, and that they 

have a well-rounded education. But, at the same time, I think that 

we are at a point, in Kentucky anyway, where we need a little bit 

more of an innovative way to do it than just simply applying numbers to it. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Mr. Schuler, you have suggested that a 

multi-metric accountability system is important. The ESSA encourages that, so I want to ask you what the draft regulation, including 

guardrails, to ensure low performance of traditionally underserved 

students is not masked, to make sure that your overall score does 

not mask the subgroups. 

What multi-measure system do you envision with a low-achieving subgroup but a high graduation rate, for example? How do you 

make sure that you are not submerging the underperforming 

group? 

Mr. SCHULER. That is a great question. That is one of the things 

I love about the system that we have developed and the use of the 

dashboard as well. 

You develop the architecture of your dashboard for each different 

indicator, including graduation rates, grades, success in algebra II, 

for example, because we know that is such a gateway course. You 

build all that up and as you populate, you can desegregate by each 

student group per variable. That is why it gives you such a more 

well-rounded comprehensive understanding of what is happening 

in that school. 

And then, if you still have your annual test, if those lines are 

going in the same direction and both up, that tells you one thing. 

If they are both going down, it says the States are really going to 

need to engage. And if you are going in opposite directions, we really need to dig into that date and see what is going on. 

So I love the idea of developing that multi-metric approach 

that—research-based, but then populates the dashboard that allows really to drill down into the data to improve instruction opportunities for kids. 

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the gentlemen. The gentleman’s time has 

expired. Dr. Foxx, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to give a very 

strong thank you to our practicing professional witnesses here 

today for your strong, positive commitments to educating the young 

people in their purview. 

I think it comes across very, very strongly that you care, that you 

understand the subjects, and that you are really committed to serving the children that you serve, so it is so refreshing—it is not refreshing, it is great to hear it. I hear it a lot when I am at home 

from people in your same position, so I know there is a lot of good 

going on in education in this country. And the good that is going 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

83 

on is being done by people like you, and so I appreciate you very 

much. 

Dr. Schuler, I want to ask about the foster care regulations you 

raised in your testimony. I know Dr. King said the Department has 

also released guidance on that subject just this morning. Could you 

talk more specifically about the current process between school districts and child welfare agencies and what impact that the Department’s proposal would have on you? 

Mr. SCHULER. Yes, so thank you for that question. And I have 

not obviously had a chance to see what came out this morning, but 

right now what happens is we sit down with the child welfare 

agency and we engage in a conversation about how can we best 

serve the needs of that child. 

The concern with this regulation is it really precludes the child 

welfare agencies from being compelled to participate in that conversation because at the end of the day, if they do not support, we 

are going to have to come up with the money. And did I think back 

to my first superintendents outside of Madison and I had a student 

homeless under McKinney-Vento, very appropriate, we had to provide transportation. 

I was in a very, very small district outside of Madison. The student’s home district was Milwaukee. 

I paid every day for students to be transported, over an hour and 

15 minutes one way, back and forth. And in that district where I 

had 80 teachers at the end of the year, that total cost was over a 

teacher. And so I am very concerned about the impact that this 

proposed regulation could have, especially on brothers and sisters, 

colleagues of ours, and smaller rural districts. 

Ms. FOXX. Now, thank you very much for that response. 

Dr. Pruitt, in your written testimony, you talked about the restriction the Department was proposing to place on State flexibility 

to define ‘‘consistently underperforming’’. I think it is pretty clear 

you have been talking about this already in the State of Kentucky, 

but would you expand on that just a little bit? 

Mr. SCHULER. Absolutely. As some of my colleagues here have 

even already mentioned, the fact that we have been so focused on 

math and reading for such a long time and not to say that we still 

should be, but at the same time there are other factors that are 

equally as important. 

For me personally, and I think we are hearing this more and 

more in our State, it is the issue of opportunity. So for us, when 

we look at our persistently low-scoring schools, yes, we need to look 

at the math and reading scores, but we also need to see what they 

are offering. The days of offering algebra I, algebra I lite, and algebra I low carb need to end. 

We need to actually start guaranteeing every kid is getting the 

education they need and that every kid is actually getting a level 

of expectation that will only serve to help them be successful. 

So for us, I want us to be able to really have an open playbook 

where we can say, you know, your kids are doing horribly in 

achievement, but I think we are going to find some that are doing 

decent in achievement, but they are doing horrible in what they 

are offering, especially our underserved populations. So I want to 

have more of that latitude that we can really take a good hard look 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

84 

at that school behavior that I mentioned earlier and guarantee that 

every kid is getting the offering of high expectations and education 

that they deserve. 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you very much. For anybody who is taught, we 

all know that it is so important to teach at the level that the students are able to perform or at least, I mean, that is what we understand. 

And Ms. Harrelson, I want to make a particular thank you to 

you for being a math teacher. Every time I meet great math teachers, I say you are worth your weight in gold. We need a lot more 

of you in the schools, so thank you for doing that as well as having 

such a well-rounded perspective. I yield back. 

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the gentlelady and associate with her remarks. Ms. Bonamici, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

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

you to all of the panelists. I want to align myself with Dr. Foxx’ 

comments about your commitment and I can sense that as well. 

Your commitment to education and your commitment to making 

certain that the Every Student Succeeds Act is implemented in a 

way that does provide that opportunity to all of our students. 

I am not an educator, but I spent 16 years as a very involved 

public school parent. It got to the point where my kids said, Mom, 

do you always have to be at school? But I had the opportunity to 

spend a lot of time volunteering and then served on our State legislature on the Education Committee and then came here to Congress where I find myself still going back to school on a regular 

basis and visiting and talking to students and teachers. 

And Ms. Harrelson, in your testimony you talk about providing 

relief from extensive time focused on standardized testing and use 

of assessment to guide meaningful instruction. I cannot tell you 

how many times I heard that over the years since No Child Left 

Behind passed and that focus on testing. But the high stakes associated with the testing were what I saw as incredibly problematic 

and I share in your hope that the new education law will spur better use of assessments, fewer and better assessments. I worked 

very hard to get a provision in the law to allow states and districts 

to eliminate duplicative tests and give educators more time to plan 

and design instruction based on data from high-quality and timely 

assessments. 

So, Ms. Harrelson, can you discuss how the Department and 

State leaders and local school districts can work together to make 

sure that assessments do provide useful information to teachers 

and families, including the statewide assessments that were authorized in the legislation by partisan members of Congress? And 

then I am going to ask Ms. Hall to respond to that as well. 

Ms. HARRELSON. Okay, so I have had the privilege of working on 

some of our former assessments and I do think we started out with 

the idea of making sure we really have educators involved in these 

conversations. And this goes at the local, the State and the Federal 

level, so I think it is really important that we continue to really 

look at how we are developing our assessments because it is really 

educator voice that really narrows kind of what this actually looks 

like in the classroom and the type of information we would want 

back to be looking at how we are doing. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

85 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. My State of Oregon is a pretty early 

adopter of adaptive testing in America. There is a tremendous potential there. 

Ms. Hall, you want to discuss that as well? Because I share your 

perspective, it is important to assess students. We just need to 

make sure we are doing the right thing with those assessments. 

Ms. HALL. Absolutely, and I will start by saying we appreciate 

your leadership on efforts to support States and to confirm States 

to audit assessments and eliminate low-quality, duplicative, unaligned assessments. We know that there are too many assessments in some of our districts right now and that is a waste of 

money and, worse, it is a waste of time both for teachers and for 

students, and we appreciate your support on that. 

That said, it is important not to go too far, right? We do need 

that consistent measure from an assessment that is aligned with 

State standards to be able to tell educators, tell parents, to tell policymakers how every student is doing relative to State-set standards and that allows to identify both of those students, those 

schools, those districts that are struggling to target resources and 

support to those areas. It also allows to identify consistently students, schools, districts that are doing an exceptional job, particularly with low-income students, students of color, English learners, 

and students with disabilities. 

Those are areas that we both need to celebrate and we need to 

learn from because they are getting the kinds of results of all students through high levels that is the goal of all of our work here. 

Ms. BONAMICI. I do not mean to interrupt here. I want to get another quick question in. Dr. Pruitt, I want to talk about the alternative diploma for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. The alternative diploma described in ESSA has some very 

specific requirements. 

Our intention is not to pigeonhole students into alternative diplomas, but to provide a pathway to meaningful diplomas. So how 

does your State plan to develop a high-quality pathway for the students with the most significant cognitive disabilities and will you 

be working to prevent this pathway from becoming a loophole that 

prohibits students with disabilities from achieving a regular diploma? 

Mr. PRUITT. Yeah, absolutely. We have to protect our students 

that are most vulnerable, but we also need our diplomas to mean 

something. 

I do not want to ever have a child walk a stage in Kentucky and 

get a diploma that is not even worth the paper it is printed on, so 

we are going to work really hard with our special ed community, 

our exceptional children community, our civilized community to put 

some pretty hard places in there to say this is exactly what we are 

expecting with these diplomas. 

We will work really closely with our districts, but we are going 

to do our level best to ensure that nobody can game the system in 

such a way that the adult gets the benefit when the student does 

not. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. My time is expired, but I am going 

to follow up with Dr. Schuler in writing about the transportation 

of foster students. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

86 

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Guthrie is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it, and 

thank you all for being here. First of all, let me point out that 

when we are talking about and discussing this, the three people 

that have concerns with the rule are practitioners and public education. 

They are not a think tank, they are not policy in the high-level 

policy. People who want children to learn, they want to make the 

public school system learn. And we can talk about other stuff later, 

but public schools, investment in the public school system, and 

those are where the concerns are coming from. So I just wanted to 

point that out. 

And like the N equals 30 discussion where the Secretary said if 

we cannot accomplish all these things the law requires when the 

law allows you to set your own number, but if we do not send it 

from Washington, they will not be able to comply with everything 

else, and it assumes you guys do not know what you are doing and 

that is really frustrating because it assumes that a few smart people in a room in Washington, D.C., figured it out and it works for 

everybody. 

The next example is trying to find the bottom 5 percent. The Secretary said you could not do it without a summative rating. That 

is what he said earlier and you are saying I have got committees 

of people across our great Commonwealth trying to figure out how 

to set up a rating system that gives you what you need according 

to the law, but also gives you what you need to make sure that 

kids learn better. And I think that is the beauty of our country and 

what you guys are doing is taking your ideas and bringing them 

up. And that is exactly what we tried to do in a bipartisan way, 

and my friend just said that she fought for certain parts to be in 

there. 

This was really a collaborative effort and we are afraid that the 

rules are coming down and taking away what we wanted to have 

is you guys to have your input in. So one thing that kind of struck 

because you kind of answered some of my questions I was going to 

ask is that you said that under the old system and new system, because of the year, you had one that was top 5 percent and in the 

new system it would say bottom 5 percent or how does that work— 

I mean how do two systems generate such different results? What 

are the details of that? 

Mr. PRUITT. Well, in the old system actually they were in the priority, they were in the bottom 5. And so because of the exit criteria, 

they had to stay in that going into the new system, so those two 

systems overlapped in such a way that they did not allow a reset 

button or a refresh button if you will. So under the new system 

where there was a much greater view of quality of the programs 

and not just the achievement, but actually the quality of the programs, what we found was that these schools are actually some of 

our best performers when you look at them in a broader range of 

criteria, so as a result they are stuck. 

Now, they will probably come off of the priority list in the next 

year, but because they were stuck there to start within the old system, it really just created a sense of distrust in that system by the 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

87 

fact that when you look at any list from Kentucky, you see these 

schools as distinguished and as priority. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. When you went across our Commonwealth and 

had town hall meetings, tell me about that process, and people 

showed up for those town hall meetings, practitioners, parents concerned. It was really well attended and well promoted and you did 

a really good job with it, so talk about that process. And then what 

happens when you have a system that the people just do not trust? 

Mr. PRUITT. Sure. So we decided early that the thing that we had 

to do was be out in the field. If we really wanted to develop a system that reflected the values of Kentuckians, I need to go listen to 

Kentuckians. I cannot make good decisions sitting in Frankfurt. It 

is one of the reasons that I think it is important that States have 

the authority to do this because you cannot make those decisions 

in Washington. So we had 11 town halls and all of our town halls, 

we never had less than about 200 and we had over 300 in several 

cases, so we had well over 3,000 people that showed up to these. 

We had parents, teachers, superintendents, local board members, 

legislators, community members, civil rights members that came 

and told us what they valued in the education system, so we took 

that. 

We videoed each one, we took notes on each one, we have posted 

those up for everybody to be able to see. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. So what did you learn> What have you learned 

from that you have implemented or tried to bring in to— 

Mr. PRUITT. We learned that Kentuckians want a simple system 

that makes clear what performance is and not the appearance of 

performance. We learned that the education of the whole child 

must be critical and not just focused on math and reading. 

We learned that we have got to cut down on competition between 

our districts and embraced the idea of our children our Commonwealth so that we actually perpetuate a system where the districts 

are willing to work together to ensure kids get what they need as 

opposed to I have to better than you for me to get my better writing. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. And like I said, when you have all these town halls 

of people out there, I may think I—personally I say how can you 

rate a school if you do not have a summative rating? But you may 

come with ideas and say, wow, I never thought of that. And that 

is the beauty of what this law is trying to do. So we have people 

who really care about what they are doing, passionately about 

what they are doing, and trying to be innovative and it helps everybody. 

Mr. Chairman, I just ran out of time. I yield back. 

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman’s time has 

expired. Mr. Allen, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Dr. Pruitt, I am fascinated by your—I am only reading your testimony, but you seem 

to be ahead of the curve as far as what I understand. A lot of 

States have been unable to address how we implement this new 

law. 

One of the things that I was interested in reading, the testimony 

was how you had engaged in business community. What I have 

seen, the business community obviously benefits from an educated 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

88 

society and, of course, business communities make their decisions 

where they locate based on a skilled workforce, an educated workforce. 

So, in fact, in several areas in my district, people ask me, so how 

do we recruit industry? And I said, well, we have got to have an 

educated and skilled workforce. Well, how do we do that? 

It is a challenge and as far as your experience in the business 

community, what have you seen and how is your business community address this incredible need to get folks back to work in this 

country? 

Mr. PRUITT. Great question. Workforce is inextricably linked to 

education, and so I think we are very lucky in our State that we 

have a governor who, in our legislature, who is very focused with 

the workforce and that is an area of mind that I have a particular 

interest in as well. 

One of the things we like about the regs is that they do give career and technical education. It is just we are actually recognizing 

it as a major portion of our students’ educational experience. I 

think we are recognizing that simply graduating from high school 

is not enough. There should not be a terminal degree or diploma. 

We actually need to be training students to be able to go—whether they go into university or 2-year technical college or directly into 

the career workforce, we have to provide all those opportunities 

laid out for students and do a good job counseling them. 

We have had a great relationship with our cabinet workforce and 

education in that we are working with our Kentucky Workforce Innovation Board to actually have the business community tell us so 

that we can actually develop pathways for specific jobs that are 

needed in the different regions of Kentucky, So as we work with 

our KWIB, we are actually asking now, which of these pathways 

are important, so that we can attract better business to our communities. Because we actually have a workforce that is able to 

meet the needs because we are not just randomly giving career 

tech credit, we are actually focused on getting the credit that is 

necessary to be able to fill the job needs. 

Mr. ALLEN. I congratulate you on your work. Dr. Schuler, in 

traveling throughout my district which you are close to the kitchen 

in your district, in your area, and one of the things—and, of course, 

Dr. Pruitt mentioned in his testimony educating the whole child, 

and I was shocked in asking questions. I said I always ask what 

is your biggest challenge and everywhere I went, they talked about 

the emotional health of these young people. And, of course, we are 

talking about how do you educate the entire person? 

Do you care to comment on any issues you are having and maybe 

how you are addressing that? 

Mr. SCHULER. Well, we just engage in our district and the entire 

community conversation on that exact topic. In talking about what 

does make sense, how are we ensuring the emotional, mental 

health of our kids and are we putting too much stress and pressure 

on them? And it has been an awesome conversation, so starting in 

two years, we are going to start our high schools later in the day 

based on the research. 

We have found a way to compact the day, shortening the lunch 

periods, so that kids are not still there late at night. We also put 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

89 

parameters and limits on how long practices and activities can last, 

and we are providing some opportunities during the year where we 

are asking our staff and our students not to do work. 

Four weekends during the year we say go be a kid. Staff, focus 

on your family. Because we need people to step away a little bit 

so that they come back and completely reengage. And that has 

been—I am really excited about that, to track that and see if that 

has an impact. 

But we have to do something to ensure that we are providing for 

that whole child and that is what has been so frustrating, I think, 

the last couple of years and at least why a couple of us are up here 

today concerning—none of that conversation is about the score. 

None of this stuff that Dr. Pruitt is doing is talking about a score. 

We have to provide access and opportunities to rebuild our communities. 

Mr. ROKITA. The gentleman’s time is expired. The gentleman 

from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Thanks much. The first one is for any one of 

you, so we will see who talks first. I do not know if you were here 

and happened to hear Secretary King’s testimony but I wonder if 

any of you, and you can start with Dr. Pruitt and work our way 

across the table, if there is anything he said that you would like 

to respond to? 

Mr. PRUITT. I think, I mentioned this earlier, I think some of his 

interpretations of what are in the regs are different than our interpretations; ‘‘ours’’ being Kentuckians. I really do not think that he 

sees the timeline issue the same way we do. Having the conflation 

between 2016–2017 identification and 2017–2018, he mentioned 

that 2017–2018 was a planning year, which was new to me. I had 

not heard that before. My understanding was that 2017–2018 was 

the year that you started. 

If it is a plan year, then I think maybe we can have a little bit 

more time to actually engage more stakeholders and build a better 

system, but maybe I missed that part. But for me, that was a bit 

of news, so maybe I have to go back and reread, but the way I understand it is actually they have accelerated it. And in my opinion, 

the current regs would actually cause the current system to actually stay in place because it limits my ability to be innovative. It 

limits my ability to be able to do something special. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. 

Ms. HARRELSON. Okay, I would just like to emphasize again the 

importance of teacher voice. And, you know, as you probably read 

in my testimony, I do work in some of our lowest performing 

schools in Colorado, and with teachers on the ground floor daily 

and what we would like to see is allowing our teachers to elevate 

their voice and what to do to actually improve outcomes for our 

students in these conditions. So once again, teacher voice. It is really hard for someone up here in D.C. to start dictating what we 

should be doing in our low-performing schools. It is really hard.. 

Thanks. 

Ms. HALL. I think we heard the Secretary talk many times about 

the importance of stakeholder engagement and getting feedback 

through this entire implementation process, and I believe that 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

90 

there are many instances where the Department has made good on 

that and is continuing to make good on that. 

We also heard the Secretary talk about putting guardrails in 

place, but still allowing State and local decisions in key places and 

I believe that the regulatory kind of proposal in many instances allows for that. 

One of the examples that he talked about was identifying schools 

that are consistently underperforming based on State-set goals, not 

federally prescribed goals, but those that are based on an analysis 

of State data. We really appreciated that. 

Mr. SCHULER. Okay, this is the first time in 15 years that we 

have the opportunity as people in the field and in the States to develop some innovative creative ways to address the goals of ESSA. 

And I am super concerned about the tight timelines, almost ending 

up—not giving us that time to go out and collectively engage stakeholders in authentic ways and plant for that implementation. 

We want to transform and lead, and we can do that. We just 

need time to engage in that process. So I am very concerned that 

a tight timeline is going to result in a continuation of what has 

been and that is not what we want. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay, I have a question for Ms. Harrelson because I always liked math and I recently had a discussion with 

somebody who is very involved in the system. He has been a teacher. I think he is a tutor, been involved for many years, and feels 

how much worse the students are doing than in the past. Kind of 

interesting that you thought we would get more input from the 

teachers. 

When I was in the State legislature, he used to go, and I still 

think it is right, that they would bar the use of calculators on 

standardized tests. Part of it, I felt, was one of the reasons why our 

children were having such a hard problem with math and they 

were not developing the ability to play with numbers in their head. 

I wondered what your comments were on that, whether you felt 

like my friends, that was one of the reasons why our kids are 

underperforming in math. And while I do not like the Federal Government imposing anything, something at least on the State level, 

we ought to take those calculators away and force those kids to 

play with numbers in their mind. In 15 seconds, please. 

Ms. HARRELSON. All right,. I support a balanced approach when 

it comes to calculators. It depends on what you are doing. And so 

I do think that it is important for kids to be flexible with numbers, 

but there is also some problem-solving that is at a higher level that 

we might want to incorporate the use of a calculator to reach some 

more complex problem-solving situations. 

Mr. ROKITA. The time is expired. Mr. Scott, you are recognized 

for a closing. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for convening the hearing. A lot of issues were brought forward, one of 

which was the idea of supplement not supplant. As I indicated, 

since the Brown decision, there is a constitutional responsibility to 

provide an equal educational opportunity, and supplement not supplant should be supplemental over and above, not an unconstitutionally underfunded level. But what it should have been, at 

least a bare minimum under the Constitution providing equal eduCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

91 

cational opportunity and then it should be supplemental because 

under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 we 

recognized some challenges that occur when there is a significant 

concentration of poverty. So we need to make sure that we do not 

excuse those localities that are not funding education up to at least 

a constitutional level. 

There are a lot of other issues that came up, but I think the Secretary indicated that we are in the comment period and if comments need to be made on regulations, now is the time to make 

those comments known. He also indicated that he is going to be seriously considering all of those comments and there is no reason to 

believe that he will not. 

So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving me, the witnesses, the 

Secretary, and the panel the opportunity to comment on the regulations. We did a lot of work to enact the Every Student Succeeds 

Act. It is a bipartisan effort and we hopefully can continue to go 

forward in a bipartisan manner. 

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the gentleman. I thank him for the letter 

and spirit of his comments. We both sat at the final negotiating 

table and the fact of the matter is the law is the law and I was 

very clear on supplement and supplant. And from the testimony 

even yet today, as we have heard for several years now, to do so 

otherwise than what is in the current law is to have a high likelihood of hurting those very kids that we are supposed to be helping. 

So with that, I want to thank each one of you for your leadership, both locally and nationally. I am inspired and I am motivated 

as well as the members here are by the words we have heard today 

from each of you and the leadership that you provide. 

We do hope and expect that leadership will continue because it 

is going to be needed now in the implementation as well as the 

oversight phases of what is a very promising law, as Dr. Roe said 

during the first panel, that is actually inspiring teachers at the 

local level to continue teaching and maybe even come back to the 

profession, and what a great sign that is and will continue to be. 

I agree also with Mr. Scott about the need to engage stakeholders as you said. Dr. Pruitt and I think you all mentioned the 

comment period is live. The deadline is August 1st. 

For those of you at the witness table who are represented by associations, those associations will definitely be making comments 

for sure, but that does not prohibit any of you as individuals or 

your counterparts or peers as individuals from making comments 

as well. 

Ms. Hall is also correct that we have all heard how often Dr. 

King just today used the word ‘‘feedback’’ and we should make sure 

there is no excuse on the table for him, for us, or for anybody in 

this process to not have that feedback. Ad so again, August 1st 

being the deadline, the time is now. And as you are all leaders, I 

hope you and your counterparts and peers will all step up. 

With that, seeing no further business before the committee, this 

committee stands adjourned. 

[Additional submissions by Mr. Scott follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

92 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 52 here 20458.052
93 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 53 here 20458.053
94 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 54 here 20458.054
95 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 55 here 20458.055
96 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 56 here 20458.056
97 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 57 here 20458.057
98 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 58 here 20458.058
99 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 59 here 20458.059
100 

[Questions submitted for the record and their responses follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

101 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 31 here 20458.031
102 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 32 here 20458.032
103 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 33 here 20458.033
104 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 34 here 20458.034
105 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 35 here 20458.035
106 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 36 here 20458.036
107 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 37 here 20458.037
108 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 38 here 20458.038
109 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 39 here 20458.039
110 

[Responses to questions submitted for the record follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

111 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 40 here 20458.040
112 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 41 here 20458.041
113 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 42 here 20458.042
114 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 43 here 20458.043
115 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 44 here 20458.044
116 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 45 here 20458.045
117 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 46 here 20458.046
118 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 47 here 20458.047
119 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 48 here 20458.048
120 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 49 here 20458.049
121 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 50 here 20458.050
122 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 51 here 20458.051
123 

[Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER