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

26–227 PDF 2018

ESSA IMPLEMENTATION: EXPLORING 

STATE AND LOCAL REFORM EFFORTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JULY 18, 2017 

Serial No. 115–24 

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 

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn ‘‘GT’’ Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

Bradley Byrne, Alabama 

David Brat, Virginia 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Elise Stefanik, New York 

Rick W. Allen, Georgia 

Jason Lewis, Minnesota 

Francis Rooney, Florida 

Paul Mitchell, Michigan 

Tom Garrett, Jr., Virginia 

Lloyd K. Smucker, Pennsylvania 

A. Drew Ferguson, IV, Georgia 

Ron Estes, Kansas 

Karen Handel, Georgia 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Ranking Member 

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 Takano, California 

Alma S. Adams, North Carolina 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Donald Norcross, New Jersey 

Lisa Blunt Rochester, Delaware 

Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Adriano Espaillat, New York 

Brandon Renz, Staff Director 

Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on July 18, 2017 ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Foxx, Hon. Virginia, Chairwoman, Committee on Education and the 

Workforce ....................................................................................................... 1 

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

Scott, Hon. Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’, Ranking Member, Committee on Education and the Workforce ............................................................................. 3 

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

Statement of Witnesses: 

Lovell, Mr. Phillip, Vice President of Policy Development and Government Relations, Alliance for Excellent Education ...................................... 23 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 25 

Nowicki, Ms. Jacqueline, Director, K12 Education, U.S. Government Accountability Office ......................................................................................... 8 

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

Pletnick, Ms. Gail, Superintendent, Dysart Unified School District ............ 18 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 20 

Wright, Ms. Carey, State Superintendent, Mississippi Department of 

Education ....................................................................................................... 48 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 50 

Additional Submissions: 

Mr. Lovell: 

School Interventions That Work: Targeted Support for Law-Performing Students ................................................................................... 90 

Mr. Scott: 

Prepared statement from The Advocacy Institute .................................. 108 

Prepared statement from The Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc. (COPAA) ............................................................................... 109 

Prepared statement from LDF ................................................................. 112 

Prepared statement from National Down Syndrome ............................. 115 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(1) 

ESSA IMPLEMENTATION: EXPLORING 

STATE AND LOCAL REFORM EFFORTS 

Tuesday, July 18, 2017 

House of Representatives 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in Room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Virginia Foxx [chairwoman of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Foxx, Wilson of South Carolina, 

Walberg, Guthrie, Rokita, Barletta, Messer, Brat, Grothman, 

Stefanik, Allen, Lewis, Mitchell, Garrett, Smucker, Estes, Handel, 

Scott, Davis, Grijalva, Courtney, Fudge, Polis, Sablan, Bonamici, 

Takano, Adams, DeSaulnier, Norcross, Blunt Rochester, 

Krishnamoorthi, Shea-Porter, and Espaillat. 

Staff Present: Michael Comer, Press Secretary; Amy Raaf Jones, 

Director of Education and Human Resources Policy; Jonas Linde, 

Professional Staff Member; Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk; Kelley 

McNabb, Communications Director; Jake Middlebrooks, Legislative 

Assistant; James Mullen, Director of Information Technology; 

Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Mandy Schaumburg, Education 

Deputy Director and Senior Counsel; Brad Thomas, Senior Education Policy Advisor; Michael Woeste, Press Secretary; Tylease 

Alli, Minority Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator; Austin 

Barbera, Minority Press Assistant; Jacque Chevalier, Minority 

Education Policy Director; Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director; 

Mishawn Freeman, Minority Staff Assistant; Doug Hodum, Minority Education Policy Fellow; Kimberly Knackstedt, Minority Disability Policy Advisor; Veronique Pluviose, Minority General Counsel; andAneesh Sahni, Minority Education Policy Fellow. 

Chairwoman FOXX. The Committee on Education and the Workforce will come to order. Good morning and welcome to today’s full 

committee hearing. I thank our panel of witnesses and our committee members for joining today’s discussion on the implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act, ESSA. 

ESSA can be considered a milestone for K–12 policy because it 

was a monumental shift in the role of States and school districts 

would have in the future of education. ESSA sought to achieve two 

specific goals for K–12 education: autonomy and accountability. 

States and school districts were given new independence when creating a K–12 education program that works best for their own students, ending a Washington knows best approach to education. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

2 

Additionally, ESSA specifically prohibited the federal government from influencing States’ adoption of particular standards. It 

also repealed Federal mandates for teacher performance and protected a State’s right to opt out of Federal education programs. 

Part of ESSA’s goal for State and school district autonomy was to 

force Washington to remain at arm’s length from States and school 

districts when it comes to education. And rest assured that this 

committee will be watching to ensure that Washington keeps its 

distance. 

While States and school districts were given more autonomy in 

ESSA, the law maintains provisions ensuring parents have transparent information about school performance and States and districts can hold schools accountable for delivering a high-quality 

education to all students. ESSA also included unprecedented restrictions on the Department of Education’s authority to take back 

the State and local flexibility guaranteed by the law. 

ESSA has stripped away powers of the Department of Education, 

such as the ability of the Secretary of Education to legislate 

through executive fiat or the ability of the Department’s bureaucrats to substitute their judgment for States’. History made it clear 

that a top-down approach to K–12 education did not serve students, parents, teachers, or the States well, and ESSA directly addressed the shortcomings. 

Given the monumental shift in education policy represented by 

ESSA, it is important that we hear how implementation is progressing. We know the law will not fully take effect into the coming 

school year and we will need time to assess its impact on schools 

and students. However, I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses about the progress State school districts and the Department of Education are making. 

This committee has been keeping a close eye on this implementation process. Last year we held four hearings on implementation of 

ESSA. Today we will continue our discussion on ESSA’s implementation. 

ESSA was truly a change for K–12 education and I do believe 

this bipartisan law delivers the proper balance of autonomy and accountability to parents and taxpayers while ensuring a limited Federal role. This law has the ability to empower State and local leaders to change K–12 education for the better and that is why it is 

of utmost importance to this committee. I look forward to hearing 

from our witnesses and members during today’s hearing. 

With that, I yield to Ranking Member Scott for his opening remarks. 

[The statement of Chairwoman Foxx follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Virginia Foxx, Chairwoman, Committee on 

Education and the Workforce 

Good morning, and welcome to today’s full committee hearing. I’d like to thank 

our panel of witnesses and our committee members for joining today’s discussion on 

the implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). 

ESSA can be considered a milestone for K–12 policy because it was a monumental 

shift in the role states and school districts would have in the future of education. 

ESSA sought to achieve two specific goals for K–12 education: autonomy and accountability. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

3 

States and school districts were given new independence when creating a K–12 

education program that works best for their own students, ending a ‘‘Washington 

knows best’’ approach to education. 

Additionally, ESSA specifically prohibited the federal government from influencing states’ adoption of particular standards. It also repealed federal mandates for 

teacher performance and protected a state’s right to opt-out of federal education programs. 

Part of ESSA’s goal for state and school district autonomy was to force Washington to remain at arm’s length from states and school districts when it comes to 

education, and rest assured that this committee will be watching to ensure Washington keeps its distance. 

While states and school districts were given more autonomy in ESSA, the law 

maintains provisions ensuring parents have transparent information about school 

performance and states and districts can hold schools accountable for delivering a 

high-quality education to all students. 

ESSA also included unprecedented restrictions on the Department of Education’s 

authority to take back the state and local flexibility guaranteed by the law. 

ESSA has stripped away powers of the Department of Education, such as the ability of the Secretary of Education to legislate through executive fiat, or the ability 

of the Department’s bureaucrats to substitute their judgment for states’. 

History made it clear that a top down approach to K–12 education did not serve 

students, teachers, parents, or the states well, and ESSA directly addressed those 

shortcomings. 

Given the monumental shift in education policy represented by ESSA, it is important that we hear how implementation is progressing. . We know the law will not 

fully take effect until the coming school year, and we will need time to assess its 

impact on schools and students. However, I look forward to hearing from today’s 

witnesses about the progress states, school districts, and the Department of Education are making. 

This committee has been keeping a close eye on this implementation process. Last 

year, we held four hearings on implementation of ESSA. Today, we will continue 

our discussion on ESSA’s implementation. 

ESSA was truly a change for K–12 education, and I do believe this bipartisan law 

delivers the proper balance of autonomy and accountability to parents and taxpayers, while ensuring a limited federal role. 

This law has the ability to empower state and local leaders to change K–12 education for the better, and that is why it is of utmost importance to this committee. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and members during today’s hearing. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Madam Chair, for convening this morning’s hearing on implementation of the Every Student Succeeds 

Act. I would like to thank our witnesses for appearing today and 

I look forward to hearing their testimony. 

It is regrettable, however, Madam Chair, that we are not hearing 

from the U.S. Department of Education, particularly considering 

media reports of the majority’s intention to critique its implementation of ESSA during today’s proceedings. I know I, for one, would 

greatly benefit from an open dialogue with the Department on 

ESSA implementation and for other matters. 

Chairwoman FOXX. you will remember that I sent you a letter 

urging Secretary DeVos and other agency heads to appear before 

the committee to discuss the administration’s priorities. That request has not been fulfilled, so I would like to take the opportunity 

again to ask that Secretary DeVos or any other representative from 

the Department who can discuss the administration’s priorities appear to engage in an open dialogue with this committee. 

Now, ESSA has been the law of the land for nearly 20 months. 

Now, while that may seem like a long time in the lifecycle of a law 

as consequential as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

which passed over 50 years ago, it is really just the beginning. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

4 

States are only now undergoing the peer review and plan approval process followed by months of work amidst a regrettable 

chaotic regulatory environment. As I said, I said this in February 

and March, but it bears repeating, when Congress used the CRA 

to block the regulation of title I’s core requirements, that was unfortunate and counter to the bipartisan agreement in ESSA. But 

this body did go forward with the CRA and now that is the reality 

that we have to work with. 

That lack of regulation, however, means increased subjectivity in 

determining compliance with the law’s requirements which makes 

oversight actions of this committee even more important. This increased subjectivity without the clarifying regulations is apparent 

in the Department’s early feedback on State plans that were submitted in May, during the May submission window. Some plan 

components were praised by peer reviewers in one State’s plan 

while the same components were questioned as insufficient in another. All the while other violations of ESSA’s equity requirements 

were overlooked by the Department completely. 

Madam Chair, I am disappointed that the media description of 

the reaction from some of our colleagues in the majority who have 

characterized the Education Department’s feedback on State plans 

as overreach. There is a difference between overreach and simply 

administering the program. And we need to remember that ESSA 

was not a blank check to States and districts, and while the law 

afforded States and districts much flexibility, that flexibility must 

occur within the law, including guardrails concerning the assessments to ascertain persistent achievement gaps and accountability 

to close those achievement gaps. 

Congress designed the law’s guardrails to protect the interest of 

the underserved students. And the law contained important requirements, requirements Republicans and Democrats all agreed to 

when we voted for ESSA, and those requirements must be meaningful. Now, ESSA is not and never has been a free-for-all. It is the 

responsibility of the Department as articulated by Congress to 

carefully scrutinize the quality of State plans and only approve 

those that meet the law’s requirements. 

Even without regulations the law is the law. And the law requires the Secretary to review the plans, ask hard questions, and, 

if necessary, disapprove the plans in the interest of the students. 

And while, as I just mentioned, some of the content and overall inconsistency of the Department’s feedback may be problematic, I do 

not, and none of us should, take issue with the Department attempting to do its job. Feedback must be more, not less, consistent 

and more, not less, vigorous. And ultimately, the feedback and submission of plans must result in approval only if the plans meet the 

spirit and the letter of the law. 

As we will hear today, many State plans leave much to be desired either due to ambiguity or incompleteness in response, or due 

to plan components that violate the law’s equity requirements. It 

is my hope that the Department will work with States, including 

through a provision of adequate guidance and technical assistance, 

to improve the overall quality of the State plans and ensure implementation that honors the long civil rights focus of the ESEA. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

5 

Now, such implementation is only possible with the support and 

partnership of the Federal Government. It is not only the role of 

the Department to support and monitor State efforts to comply 

with the law, but it is also the role of Congress to fund programs 

authorized by ESSA. Despite promises to implement the law as 

Congress intended, Secretary DeVos and President Trump proposed the elimination of bedrock ESEA programs, like title II–A to 

support teachers, 21st Century Learning Centers to support afterschool programs, and cuts to other programs, including an effective 

cut of nearly $600 million in title I. 

Now, while the House majority fiscal year 2018 Labor-H Appropriations Bill is not as draconian as the President’s request, it fails 

to honor the bipartisan ESSA agreement by eliminating title II–A, 

cutting afterschool programs and maintaining an effective cut to 

title I that will be felt at the local level. Elimination of title II–A 

would result in thousands of layoffs and inhibit local and State efforts to improve teacher, paraprofessional, and school leader supports. Defunding this program most certainly does not align with 

the bipartisan intent of the authorizing statute. 

And lastly, Trumpcare’s proposed cuts to Medicaid, if enacted, 

would devastate services for students with disabilities and undermine State and local efforts to educate all students to high standards as required by ESSA. And the situation would be even worse 

if the most recent repeal without a replace plan is enacted. 

Now, how effective can implementation be without funding? I 

know all too often that State and local education agencies face capacity challenges and I would hope to hear from today’s witnesses 

about the negative impact of underfunding ESSA programs on 

faithful implementation. 

In closing, I remain concerned about many of the actions of Secretary DeVos and this administration concerning our Nation’s students for example, the recent rhetoric from the Office of Civil 

Rights and the office’s directive to ignore systemic data when they 

investigate alleged civil rights violations. The lack of agency capacity to carry out key components of the Department, including the 

absence of deputy secretaries, the rollback of protections for student borrowers, the rescinding of protections for transgender students, the sledgehammer-like approach to deregulation without 

transparency of decision-making of the Department, and the decision to cancel the grant program to award $12 million to localities 

to provide technical assistance to help them desegregate their 

schools. All of these actions point to a troubling pattern that undermines the Federal Government’s important role to protect and promote civil rights of all students. 

This pattern must not continue with ESSA implementation. I say 

that not out of wishful thinking or partisan spin, but because it is 

what is in the law that we enacted and that needs to be enforced. 

And ESSA is clear: it is the responsibility of the Department to review and provide feedback on ESSA State plans, make determinations of approvals, of disapprovals, based on compliance with the 

statute and partner, including through enforcement activities, with 

States and school districts to support the laws’ implementation 

moving forward. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

6 

It is the responsibility of States and districts to innovate within 

the guardrails of ESSA’s equity requirements. There may have 

been a change in administration, but the law is the law and the 

Federal role is clear. I hope this committee commits to a robust 

oversight of ESSA implementation moving forward to ensure that 

it is responsibly fulfilled. 

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back. 

[The statement of Mr. Scott follows:] 

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

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Thank you, Chairwoman, for convening this morning’s hearing on implementation 

of the Every Student Succeeds Act. I’d also like to thank today’s witnesses for appearing before us today. I look forward to hearing from each of you. 

It is regrettable; however, that we are not hearing from the US Department of 

Education, especially considering media reports of the majority’s intention to critique its implementation actions during today’s proceedings. I know I, for one, would 

greatly benefit from an open dialogue with the Department – on ESSA and on other 

matters. 

Chairwoman Foxx, you may remember that I sent you a letter urging Secretary 

DeVos and the other agency heads to appear before the committee to discuss the 

administration’s priorities. That request has not been fulfilled, so I would like to 

take this opportunity to again ask that Secretary DeVos, or another representative 

of the Department appear to engage in an open dialogue with this committee. 

ESSA has been the law of the land for nearly 20 months, and while that may 

seem like a long time, in the lifecycle of a law as consequential as the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act, it really is just the beginning. States are only just 

now undergoing the peer review and plan approval process, following months of 

work amidst a regrettably chaotic regulatory environment. 

I said this in February and March, but it bears repeating: I believe this Congress’ 

use of the CRA to block regulation of Title I’s core requirements was misguided and 

irresponsible. But counter to the bipartisan agreement of ESSA, this body did move 

forward with the CRA – and that is now the reality to which we must all adjust. 

Lack of regulation means increased subjectivity in determining compliance with the 

law’s requirements, which makes the oversight actions of this Committee even more 

important. 

This increased subjectivity without appropriate regulation is apparent in the Department’s early feedback on state plans that were submitted in the May submission window. Plan components praised by peer reviewers in one state’s plan were 

questioned as insufficient in another’s, while other violations of ESSA’s equity requirements are ignored by the Department completely. 

I am disappointed with the reaction from some of my colleagues in the majority 

who have characterized ED’s state plan feedback as overreach. 

Despite the soaring rhetoric, ESSA is not a blank check to states and districts. 

While the law affords states and districts much flexibility in decision-making, that 

flexibility must occur within the guardrails of the law – including guardrails concerning the integrity of assessments to ascertain persistent achievement gaps and 

act to close them. Congress designed the law’s guardrails to protect the interests of 

underserved students. 

The law contains important requirements – requirements Republicans and Democrats all agreed to when we voted for ESSA – and those requirements must be 

meaningful. ESSA is not – and never has been – a free for all, and it is the responsibility of the Department, as articulated by Congress in ESSA, to carefully scrutinize 

the quality of state plans and only approve those that meet the law’s requirements. 

Even without accompanying regulations, the law is the law – and the law requires 

the Secretary to review plans, ask hard questions and disapprove if necessary – in 

the interest of students. 

While, as I just mentioned, I find some of the content and the overall inconsistency of the Department’s feedback to be problematic, I do not – and none of us 

should – take issue with the Department attempting to do its job. The feedback 

must be more consistent and more rigorous, not less rigorous. And ultimately, the 

feedback and resubmission of plans must result in approval only of plans that meet 

the spirit and letter of the law. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

7 

As we will hear today, many state plans leave much to be desired, either due to 

ambiguity or incompleteness in response or due to proposed plan components that 

violate the law’s equity requirements. It is my hope that the 

Department will work with states, including through provision of adequate guidance and technical assistance, to improve the overall quality of state plans and ensure implementation that honors the longstanding civil rights focus of the ESEA. 

Such implementation is only possible with the support and partnership of the federal government. Not only is it the role of the Department to support and monitor 

state efforts to comply with the law, but it is also the role of Congress to fund programs authorized by ESSA. 

Despite promises to implement the law as Congress intended, Secretary DeVos 

and President Trump proposed elimination of bedrock ESEA programs – Title II– 

A to support teachers, 21st Century Community Learning Centers to support after 

school – and cuts to others, including an effective cut of nearly $600 million to Title 

I–A. 

And while the House Majority’s FY18 LaborH appropriations bill isn’t as draconian as the President’s budget request, it fails to honor the bipartisan agreement 

of ESSA by eliminating Title II–A, cutting afterschool, and maintaining the effective 

cut to Title I–A that will be felt at the local level. Elimination of Title II–A would 

result in thousands of layoffs and inhibit local and state efforts to improve teacher, 

paraprofessional, and school leader supports – defunding this program most certainly does not align with the bipartisan intent of the authorizing statute. 

Lastly, Trumpcare’s proposed cuts to Medicaid, if enacted, will devastate services 

for students with disabilities and undermine state and local efforts to educate all 

students to high standards, as required by ESSA. 

How effective can an implementation be without funding? I know all too often 

that state and local educational agencies face capacity challenges, and I hope to 

hear from today’s witnesses about the negative impact of underfunding ESSA programs on faithful implementation. 

In closing, I remain concerned with many of the actions of Secretary DeVos and 

this administration concerning our nation’s students – 

* the recent rhetoric from OCR and the office’s directive to ignore systemic data 

in investigating alleged civil rights violations; 

* the lack of agency capacity to carry out key department functions; 

* the rollbacks of protections for student borrowers; 

* rescinding protections for transgender students; and 

* the sledgehammer-like approach to deregulation without transparency of decision-making at the department... 

All of these actions point to a troubling pattern that undermines the federal government’s important role to protect and promote the civil rights of all students. 

This pattern must not continue with ESSA implementation. I say that not out of 

wishful thinking or partisan spin, but because that’s what the law we wrote and 

enacted demands. 

ESSA is clear – it is the responsibility of the Department to review and provide 

feedback of ESSA state plans, make determinations of approval or disapproval 

based on compliance with statute, and partner, including through enforcement activities, with states and school districts to support the law’s implementation moving 

forward. 

And it is the responsibility of states and district to innovate within the guardrails 

of ESSA’s equity requirements. There may have been a change in administration, 

but the law is the law and the federal role is clear. I hope this committee commits 

to robust oversight of ESSA implementation moving forward to ensure that responsibility is fulfilled. 

Thank you and I yield back. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Scott. Pursuant to committee 

rule 7C all members will be permitted to submit written statements to be included in the permanent hearing record. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 14 days to allow 

such statements and other extraneous material referenced during 

the hearing to be submitted for the official hearing record. 

I now turn to introductions of our distinguished witnesses. Ms. 

Jacqueline Nowicki is the director of K–12 education for the U.S. 

Government Accountability Office. Dr. Gail Pletnick is the superintendent for the Dysart Unified School District in Surprise, AriCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

8 

zona. Mr. Phillip Lovell is vice president of policy development and 

government relations at the Alliance for Excellent Education. Dr. 

Carey Wright is the superintendent of education for Mississippi. 

I now ask our witnesses to raise your right hand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Chairwoman FOXX. Let the record reflect the witnesses answered 

in the affirmative. 

Before I recognize each of you to provide your testimony, let me 

briefly explain our lighting system. We allow 5 minutes for each 

witness to provide testimony. When you begin, the light in front of 

you will turn green. When 1 minute is left, the light will turn yellow. At the 5-minute mark the light will turn red and you should 

wrap up your testimony. Members will each have 5 minutes to ask 

questions. 

We now recognize Ms. Nowicki for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF JACQUELINE NOWICKI, DIRECTOR, K–12 

EDUCATION, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Ms. NOWICKI. Good morning, Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member Scott, and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss GAO’s new report on early observations on State 

accountability systems under ESSA. As you well know, ESSA requires States to have accountability systems that meet certain requirements, but grant States flexibility in designing these systems. 

We focused our work on four areas of State accountability systems: one, determining long-term goals; two, developing performance indicators; three, differentiating schools; and four, identifying 

and assisting low performers. We did so because stakeholder 

groups identified these as key components of accountability systems under ESSA and as areas in which States are making 

changes. 

My remarks today will focus on two key areas. First, I’ll discuss 

stakeholder views on ESSA’s flexibilities to redesign accountability 

systems. Second, I’ll discuss next steps for the Department of Education in implementing ESSA. 

In regards to my first point, all nine national stakeholder groups 

with whom we spoke saw ESSA’s accountability provisions as 

somewhat flexible. For example, most of them praised the ability 

to define their own performance indicators. 

Most stakeholders also indicated that ESSA strikes a good balance between flexibility and requirements. For example, one stakeholder said that ESSA threads the needle very well between offering flexibility to design systems that meet State needs and requiring States to protect vulnerable populations. 

The extent to which States are changing their current systems 

varies. Some States are pleased with the systems they developed 

under their NCLB waivers and are continuing down that path. But 

for States that see their current systems as lacking in some way 

or when stakeholder consultation highlighted the need for significant change, we were told that ESSA provides room for States to 

consider innovative revisions. 

Our report provides many examples of how two States, Ohio and 

California, are tailoring their accountability systems of each of the 

four areas I mentioned. I would like to highlight one example here. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

9 

To address ESSA’s requirements to differentiate schools, Ohio 

plans to tweak its six current indicators to assess school and student performance. Some of these indicators would measure current 

performance while others would measure growth. 

And schools would receive a letter grade on each indicator as 

well as an overall letter grade. Ohio officials felt that this approach 

would provide detailed information on various elements of their 

performance system as well as provide an easily understandable 

high-level overview of performance. 

In California, the plan is to use a color-coded dashboard to differentiate school and students’ subgroup performance on each of six 

indicators. Each indicator will measure current performance as 

well as growth over time. 

Unlike Ohio, California does not plan to aggregate the indicators 

into an overall score. State officials said they chose not to aggregate because they feel that doing so can mask individual problem 

areas. They also told us that measuring current performance and 

growth for each indicator provides a more complete picture of performance. 

With regard to my second point, given current timelines, the Department of Education remains focused on providing assistance to 

States in developing their plans and on the review and approval 

process for plans. Moving forward a key next step in ESSA implementation is for the Department to develop and implement State 

monitoring protocols. Although draft protocols were not available at 

the time of our review, education officials said that they planned 

to pilot protocols with eight or nine States in early 2018. 

The Department’s goal is to review all States within a 3- to 4- 

year cycle. Education officials also told us that they are considering 

whether there is a need for additional guidance for States. During 

our review, most national stakeholder groups told us that States 

could use guidance on a number of issues such as how to identify 

and evaluate appropriate evidence-based interventions. 

In closing, I hope our early observations shine some light on how 

States are thinking about their accountability systems in the context of ESSA’s flexibilities. ESSA implementation is still in the 

early days and much work lies ahead for both States and the Department of Education before the promise of ESSA can be fully realized. 

We look forward to working with you to support your efforts to 

oversee implementation of this important law. This completes my 

prepared remarks. I would be pleased to answer any questions you 

may have. 

[The statement of Ms. Nowicki follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

10 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 1 here 26227.001
11 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 2 here 26227.002
12 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 3 here 26227.003
13 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 4 here 26227.004
14 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 5 here 26227.005
15 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 6 here 26227.006
16 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 7 here 26227.007
17 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 8 here 26227.008
18 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Ms. Nowicki. 

Dr. Pletnick, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Would you turn 

on your microphone, please? 

TESTIMONY OF GAIL PLETNICK, SUPERINTENDENT, DYSART 

UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 

Ms. PLETNICK. Thank you. Chairman Foxx, Ranking Member 

Scott, members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to 

join you today. I am the superintendent of the Dysart School District in Arizona, and I also serve as president of AASA, the school 

superintendent association. 

I am here today because I believe it is critical we continue to 

work together to ensure the underserved populations in our schools 

truly benefit from the educational promise that the Every Student 

Succeeds Act, ESSA, was designed to deliver. I thank you and the 

committee for convening this ESSA hearing. 

The House of Representatives and the Senate are to be applauded for the hard work that was done to craft ESSA moving 

from the one-size-fits-all of No Child Left Behind to restoring control of education to the States and the local communities. Although 

ESSA may not be perfect, the power of the law is the flexibility it 

provides to States and schools allowing the focus to be on the individual student. 

I have the opportunity to talk with superintendents from across 

the State of Arizona and across the Nation about the progress 

made in ESSA implementation. A common thread in those conversations is that ESSA has created an opportunity for stakeholders to become more involved in goal-setting and establishing 

accountability processes as part of the consolidated plan requirement of ESSA. 

ESSA requires efforts to consult with and engage stakeholders 

when developing a consolidated State plan. In Arizona, committees 

and advisory groups were established to provide input at various 

stages of the plan development, feeding input into the process of 

building a final consolidated plan. I had the privilege of participating in some of these established subgroups and I also attended 

public meetings designed to provide comment on proposed components in the plan. 

I am not going to tell you that Arizona has developed the ideal 

educational plan for our State. There is definitely room for continued improvement as we implement ESSA, see what works, and 

continue to rollback State policies that lock in NCLB error constraints. Stakeholders are engaged in conversation around the 

needs in our educational systems, a discussion that is important to 

driving the improvement necessary to provide an equitable quality 

education to each student. 

A second promise of ESSA statute that many States are realizing 

is the ability to utilize multiple indicators for evaluation of our 

schools. In Arizona, we still rely heavily on annual summative 

tests, but the flexibility in ESSA started a conversation about other 

meaningful measures that should be considered. Although not 

without faults, the revised accountability system in Arizona attempts to add indicators of significance. And that is something that 

we continue to look forward to improving. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

19 

At the high school level, indicators incorporated include career 

and technical education assessments, advanced academic 

coursework indicators, and earned career credentials. The State’s 

elementary level measures of accountability are far more restrictive, but conversation in the State of Arizona continues around exploring additional important measures. While we don’t have it 100 

percent right in Arizona just yet, I can say the flexibility in ESSA 

around State accountability systems does encourage conversation 

among stakeholders about more accurate indicators of student and 

school success. 

There were challenges with the implementation of ESSA law. 

Time was definitely one of the biggest challenges. After the passage 

of the law, there was discussion related to the interpretation of the 

law and possible or proposed regulations and that debate caused 

some hesitation. 

Arizona released its first draft and started the consolidated planning process in September of 2016, and the plan required adjustments before our submission for the September 2017 deadline. Another complication as it related to time is that some States, including Arizona, had laws in place better aligned to No Child Left Behind mandates or waivers. With those State laws still in existence, 

there was an impact on what was required in our State plan and 

accountability system. 

Although that is not a Federal concern, it does impact how innovative our State plans may be at this point. A great deal of time 

and effort went into Congress writing this piece of legislation and 

negotiating on those critical components that make ESSA a good 

piece of educational legislation. 

The ultimate success of ESSA lies in our implementation, yes, 

but also in Federal appropriations. It is critical Congress match the 

bipartisan support demonstrated for the policy of the law and appropriate the funding support. 

I respectfully submit that as we continue to work together to implement ESSA and ensure it has the intended impact that we be 

cognizant of the important complementary role of adequate Federal 

investment. The students in our schools are our future leaders, our 

future workforce, and we must invest in our future by investing in 

public education. 

In closing, thank you to the committee for the work you have 

done and continue to do to ensure that the Every Student Succeeds 

Act drives the change we all want to see in our schools: equity in 

our classrooms regardless of a student’s background, where they 

live, or the circumstances they live in. Your work has ensured our 

State and local communities have a voice in what happens in our 

districts and our schools. 

I know, given the opportunity, educational leaders across this 

country will use that voice to deliver on the promise of ESSA. 

Thank you so much. 

[The statement of Ms. Pletnick follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

20 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 9 here 26227.009
21 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 10 here 26227.010
22 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 11 here 26227.011
23 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Dr. Pletnick. 

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

TESTIMONY OF PHILLIP LOVELL, VICE PRESIDENT OF POLICY 

DEVELOPMENT AND GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, ALLIANCE 

FOR EXCELLENT EDUCATION 

Mr. LOVELL. Thank you very much. Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking 

Member Scott, and members of the committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to testify on the implementation of the Every Student 

Succeeds Act. My name is Phillip Lovell and I am the vice president for policy development and government relations at the Alliance for Excellent Education. We are a national nonprofit organization dedicated to ensuring that every child graduates from high 

school, ready for college, career, and citizenship. 

I have four core messages for you today. First, ESSA is a civil 

rights law designed to ensure equity and excellence in education. 

Second, ESSA preserves an important role for the U.S. Department 

of Education. Third, the quality of ESSA State plans is uneven. 

And fourth, funding cuts threaten the implementation of the law. 

Let me begin with point one. ESSA is fundamentally a civil 

rights law with many Federal requirements designed to promote 

educational equity and prepare students for postsecondary education and the workforce. ESSA provides States with a significant 

level of flexibility when it comes to how they achieve equity and excellence, but ESSA is not a blank check. 

Both States and the Department of Education must implement 

and enforce all of ESSA’s equity-focused requirements, a sample 

list of which appears in my written testimony. 

Second, when Congress enacted ESSA it preserved the limited 

but critical role of the Department of Education. While I may not 

agree with all of its findings, the Department is appropriately carrying out its oversight role as required under the law. I want to 

be clear that this isn’t about whether we trust States. I have 

worked with many State leaders and I know that they are committed to kids, and one needs to look no further than my colleagues 

testifying today to know that is a fact. 

The fact does remain, though, that it is the Department’s job to 

review the State plans and to ensure that they comply with the law 

that this committee wrote. These plans lay out a State’s vision and 

commitment to children, parents, and the public, and it will impact 

students and teachers for at least the next decade. We have to get 

this right and the Department has a critical and statutorily required role to play. 

Third, the quality of ESSA State plans is uneven. There are certainly some strengths, but there are missed opportunities and 

many weaknesses, including some proposals that simply violate the 

law. In particular, many plans fall short of the equity promise of 

ESSA. 

And let me give you a few examples. ESSA made a commitment 

that if a school has a single subgroup that consistently underperforms, either the African American students, Latino students, the 

school would be identified for targeted support and those kids 

would receive help. ESSA applies this requirement to each individual subgroup separately because groups of students perform difCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

24 

ferently. And if you combine them together you can mask the low 

performance of a single group. 

Unfortunately, this is exactly what some States are doing. One 

State combines the achievement levels of African American, Latino, 

and native students together even though this creates a risk that 

the schools may not be identified for support when they should be. 

It also violates the law. 

A related but distinct problem is that States are not including 

historically underserved kids in their school ratings. For example, 

a school might receive an A despite the fact that African American 

students or Latino students or students with disabilities or low-income kids, other historically underserved groups might have, say, 

a low graduation rate. So you can receive an A even though, say, 

African American kids could have a graduation rate of 60 percent. 

Another problem for equity in ESSA plans relates to the identification of subgroups for support. Several States have proposed 

identifying subgroups for support if they aren’t on grade level in 

math or reading or if they have a low graduation rate, and this 

makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately, the Department has actually 

pushed back on this approach. Students should not have to fail on 

everything before they are identified for support. 

In addition, it is worth noting that while ESSA’s flexibility was 

intended to unleash creativity and innovation, by and large this 

has not happened. We hope to see policies that would promote critical thinking and problem-solving, sometimes called deeper learning. And although there are a few notable exceptions described in 

my written testimony, and here to my left I would say, State plans 

thus far are cautious, not courageous. 

Finally, I join my colleagues in expressing concerns about funding. Money is not magic, but I am concerned about the impact of 

funding cuts on ESSA. ESSA provides States with flexibility and 

responsibility. But, Madam Chair, responsibility without resources 

will not yield results. 

By freezing funding for title I, underfunding title IV, proposing 

to eliminate or reduce funding for professional development, literacy, afterschool programs, on top of proposed cuts to Medicaid 

that jeopardize the services that schools provide to our most vulnerable kids, we are handcuffing States at the exact moment that 

we have supposedly given them freedom. 

This is unfortunate because the Nation is on an upswing in education. Graduation rates are at an all-time high, including graduation rates for students who have been historically underserved. By 

implementing and enforcing ESSA’s requirements and strengthening our investment in education, we can ensure that every child 

in American succeeds. 

Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Lowell follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

25 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 32 here 26227.032
26 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 33 here 26227.033
27 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 34 here 26227.034
28 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 35 here 26227.035
29 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 36 here 26227.036
30 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 37 here 26227.037
31 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 38 here 26227.038
32 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 39 here 26227.039
33 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 40 here 26227.040
34 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 41 here 26227.041
35 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 42 here 26227.042
36 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 43 here 26227.043
37 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 44 here 26227.044
38 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 45 here 26227.045
39 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 46 here 26227.046
40 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 47 here 26227.047
41 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 48 here 26227.048
42 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 49 here 26227.049
43 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 50 here 26227.050
44 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 51 here 26227.051
45 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 52 here 26227.052
46 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 53 here 26227.053
47 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 54 here 26227.054
48 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Lovell. 

Dr. Wright, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF CAREY WRIGHT, STATE SUPERINTENDENT, 

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Ms. WRIGHT. Thank you. Before I want to start I wanted to introduce people that are key to the implementation of this back in my 

State. I have my State board chair, Ms. Rosemary Aultman, with 

me; the vice chair, Dr. Jason Dean; and one of my chiefs who is 

responsible for legislation and communication who are here with 

me today. So thank you. 

Chairman Foxx, Ranking Member Scott, and members of the 

committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify about Mississippi’s work to implement the Every Student Succeeds Act or 

ESSA. I look forward to sharing my perspective as the state superintendent of education for Mississippi, and I am also presidentelect of the board of directors for the Council of Chief State School 

Officers. 

ESSA has given Mississippi the opportunity to create a plan specifically designed for the students of our State. At the same time, 

the law provides guardrails to ensure our work is appropriately 

targeted toward improving educational opportunities and outcomes 

for all students and all schools. 

Our plan is called Mississippi Succeeds and we are proud that 

it builds upon our State board’s strong strategic plan to prepare 

students for college and careers. This strong foundation includes a 

rigorous academic standards for all students, aligned assessments 

to track student achievement, and an accountability model that 

clearly measures the performance of our schools and our districts. 

Our ESSA plan also builds upon the significant investments that 

Mississippi has made in early childhood education, literacy, career 

and technical education, advanced coursework opportunities for 

students, and professional development for all teachers. All of these 

initiatives have broad stakeholder support and have resulted in improved student outcomes. 

To design Mississippi Succeeds we again sought raw input from 

stakeholders over an 18-month period to craft a plan tailored to the 

needs of our students. During those 18 months, we conducted a listening tour which included 15 public meetings throughout the 

State. We hosted targeted meetings with specific stakeholder 

groups, and collected feedback through an online survey. 

Among our most active participants were advocates for the underserved, majority African-American communities in rural, low-income areas of the State, parents of students with disabilities, and 

teachers of English language learners. Mississippi has a small but 

growing population of English learners and most of the teachers of 

the English learners who participated in our feedback sessions 

were the only people in their schools whose work was dedicated to 

English learners. 

Throughout these meetings and the online survey, we gathered 

7,300 feedback points. We established working groups, and we established an ESSA advisory committee made up of stakeholders to 

provide us feedback and input throughout the entire development 

of our plan. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

49 

We intend to keep all of our partners engaged in our implementation of the plan through regular meetings with our stakeholders 

as well as with the ESSA advisory committee. The robust participation of stakeholders helped Mississippi develop a strong plan to 

meet the requirements of ESSA. And I am especially excited about 

the following aspects of our plan; providing effective teachers with 

the opportunities to not only teach children, but to work collaboratively to lead colleagues to improve their practice, expanding 

early childhood to support early childhood educators in a variety of 

pre-K settings to implement developmentally appropriate practices 

in their classrooms, improving schools by investing in the local 

teachers and administrators, supporting communities through P16 

councils, strengthening parent engagement through school-based 

activities. 

We appreciate the flexibility of ESSA because we intend to include subgroup performance to identify schools for school improvement support. This will have the greatest impact on African American students who make up our State’s largest underperforming 

subgroup. We are expanding career and technical education to provide continuous computer science education in grades K through 12 

and to provide our high school students with the opportunity to 

graduate with a career and technical diploma endorsement that is 

of equal value to an academic endorsement. 

We are putting a strong focus on eliminating the proficiency gap 

between African Americans and all students entirely so that the 

proficiency rates for all of our subgroups will increase to 70 percent 

by 2025. All of these initiatives are dependent on Federal support 

for public education. As a State chief, I understand that Federal resources are limited and that States must be effective stewards of 

tax dollars. 

Mississippi’s ESSA plan is built around the targeted and efficient 

use of Federal funds to maximize the impact on student achievement, especially of our most disadvantaged students. I want to 

thank you for the flexibility that you have provided through the 

Every Student Succeeds Act, and as you can see, our Mississippi 

Succeeds will expand the State’s education reform efforts to improve opportunities and outcomes for all students. 

Mississippi’s future will be shaped by the students of today and 

we are deeply committed to equipping them to learn, build, create, 

serve, and innovate. We believe in the capacity of our students to 

achieve and we believe in the ability of our teachers and schools 

to guide them to a successful future. ESSA is at the heart of our 

work. Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Wright follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

50 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 29 here 26227.029
51 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 30 here 26227.030
52 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 31 here 26227.031
53 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Dr. Wright. Thanks again to all 

of our witnesses. 

Mr. Wilson, you are recognized for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Thank you, Chairwoman Virginia 

Foxx, for your extraordinary leadership providing for this hearing 

today. And I want to thank each of you for being here today. I especially appreciate your service because I am the very happy husband 

of a dedicated teacher. And I want to keep her happy, too, so thank 

you for what you are doing. 

And, Dr. Wright, South Carolina students greatly benefit from 

career and technical education with partnerships with companies 

such as BMW, MTU, Michelin, and Boeing, and the South Carolina 

Technical Education System. South Carolina has been very fortunate with a division of technical education being promoted under 

the leadership of State superintendents of education from Dr. Barbara Neilsen to today with the Honorable Molly Spearman. 

In your testimony you include several aspects of your State’s 

plans to meet the requirements of the Every Student Succeeds Act, 

and you cited the efforts of career and technical education. Can you 

elaborate your promotion of career and technical education for the 

citizens of Mississippi? 

Ms. WRIGHT. Yes, I will. About 65 percent of the jobs that are 

currently available in our State are requiring metal skills. And so 

we have formed a committee that is working not only with our 

State Workforce Investment Board, but also on the implementation 

of the Workforce Investment Act. We have four sectors in our State 

and what we have done is we have established groups in each of 

those sectors to work directly with the businesses in those sectors 

so that we can then come back and design CTE plans that will 

allow our children to go, starting in high school, graduate from 

high school, and go immediately into the workforce. Our State 

needs that immediate piece and that is what we have got planned 

as well. 

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. And what a meaningful and fulfilling life you help young people achieve, so thank you for what 

you do. 

And, Dr. Pletnick, I want to thank you for your testimony on a 

very important issue and that is local elected school boards. And 

I know that my view is that they work best for our students. I 

learned this firsthand. My dad was a school board member in 

Charleston. I served in the State senate working with school 

boards and found out the extraordinary diversity within a single 

district that these school boards have to address, and they are hard 

work, but the extraordinary dedication of school board members. 

Your testimony promotes, again, moving from one size fits all. 

Can you provide more detail on how the Every Student Succeeds 

Act will help restore local control of education and allow educators 

to address the unique needs of individual students? 

Ms. PLETNICK. Member Wilson, thank you for that question. In 

the Dysart Unified School District, we utilize a strategic planning 

process, so our community gives us that feedback. We work with 

our business partners. We work with our parents to ensure that we 

are meeting the needs of our students in our local community. And 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

54 

our school board is that connection. So they are the elected officials. 

The ESSA has allowed us then to work through our State to ensure that the multiple measures that we are utilizing speak to 

those needs of our students, certainly our underserved population, 

but really for all students making certain that they are future 

ready. 

We, too, have a very strong career and technical education program because we hear from our local community and from our 

business partners that there are opportunities. We have Luke Air 

Force Base in our backyard. We recently took a tour and it takes 

2 billion lines of code to run the F–35. They have that mission. And 

so we are ensuring that our students have opportunities with coding and other pieces. 

That is something that is a strong piece in our strategic plan as 

we move forward. And so again, ESSA provides us that opportunity 

to look at multiple indicators and those that would truly serve our 

underserved population, but all of our students as well. 

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. And thank you for, again, looking 

out for all students. As I served in the State senate, now Congress, 

I represent a district, Lexington 1. The diversity there, you have 

resort areas. You have very upscale subdivisions. You have normal 

middle class subdivisions. You have a small town. You have rural 

communities and then you have agricultural communities. That is 

in one district. And so the local school board is just so important. 

And, Ms. Nowicki, I want to thank you for your service and your 

promotion of flexibility. Can you explain how flexibility of the act 

would provide for a different approach in adopting performance indicators? 

Ms. NOWICKI. Sorry, sir. You are asking how the flexibility of the 

act could? 

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Assist with performance indicators - in determining performance indicators. 

Ms. NOWICKI. Sure, sure. So there were a couple of different examples in our report where States were making different decisions, 

I think, around performance indicators. The way they defined subgroups, how they were choosing to use summative or overall ratings versus individual ratings on indicators. 

I think it provides flexibility for States to do whatever they think 

makes sense for them in their local context while providing sufficient guardrails to protect vulnerable populations and subgroups. 

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Thank you very much. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. Courtney, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you 

for holding this really important hearing, but I want to join the 

ranking member in saying how I think a lot of us feel frustration 

about the fact that the Secretary of Education has not yet appeared 

before this committee. It has been 6 months into this administration. We have had a budget out since May. And looking historically, 

we have always had the Secretary of Education appear before this 

committee to take questions from members about issues of the day. 

And clearly, what we are talking about today for all of us listening to our commissioners back home, stakeholders who have been 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

55 

working hard on implementation of ESSA, there is a lot of confusion out there, and we need people from the Department, particularly the person who is in charge, where the buck stops, to answer 

questions about where are we going. 

The ESSA was signed into law on December 10, 2015. It was actually a really inspiring tableau to see President Obama signing 

that law with Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican leader in the 

Senate, Mr. Rokita from our committee was standing behind the 

president. Again, it was a lot of hard work that went into that to, 

again, achieve some of the goals that some of the witnesses have 

talked about here today. 

But fast-forward and it is really not that early in the implementation of the law to where we are today in 2017. There is a lot of 

confusion out there about just the mixed messages and signals that 

are coming out of the Department as States are working hard to 

try and, again, achieve the goals of this legislation. It has not been 

helped, by the way, by the fact that the Republican majority 

chainsawed out of the Federal law the regulations, back in May, 

with the Congressional Review Act enactment that President 

Trump signed into law. That, again, just completely eliminated, 

you know, the roadmap that had been put into place by the Department. 

Again, I had questions about some of those regs. But the fact is 

now we have a black hole in the Federal law in terms of, you know, 

how ESSA is structured and designed. And when you talk about 

confusion out there, frankly, the majority added to that confusion 

by, in my opinion, just indiscriminately butchering the regs that 

were in place. 

And so that is where we are today. Again, my State of Connecticut did everything right, I think, in terms of pulling together 

stakeholders. They worked like, you know, very diligently in terms 

of coming up with a plan which was submitted. Again, it got kicked 

back about a month or so ago. 

Talking to the folks in that Department, you know, they want to, 

you know, work collaboratively, but, frankly, there is tremendous 

confusion about, you know, which direction they are supposed to go 

in. And frankly, again, it is just another reason why the Secretary 

should be here today answering questions to all of us about where 

she, in fact, intends to take this Department. 

We know when there’s confusion in Washington going back to the 

infamous words of Deep Throat during the Watergate scandal, follow the money. Again, Mr. Lovell, I would just like to sort of follow 

up your comments. We obviously have seen a budget come out of 

this administration in terms of their priorities as far as title I, title 

II, afterschool. Again, one of the goals of ESSA was to move away 

from the punitive approach of No Child Left Behind and to try and 

help districts who had been identified as underperforming. 

And again, I just would ask you to comment further about, you 

know, cutting these programs, in fact, removes the resources that 

ESSA was built around in terms of trying to help school districts 

that are struggling. 

Mr. LOVELL. Thank you very much. I could not agree more. In 

fact, it is interesting. So one of the issues that came up just a few 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

56 

minutes ago, Mr. Wilson, you brought up career and technical education. And I think that is a huge opportunity within this law. 

And, first, let me applaud the committee for its works on the reauthorization of the Perkins law. Unfortunately, because of the levels of funding that are being proposed for things like career and 

technical education and the cuts therein, we are not able to implement a lot of those programs. 

Right now, with States having the ability to design their plans 

and implement them, the integration of rigorous academics with 

CTE is a major opportunity. There is language specifically in the 

law that you wrote within title I that allows States to do this and 

not only that, you allowed States to use up to 3 percent of their 

funding for direct student services. 

And one of the uses of the direct student services funding that 

you allowed was the provision of CTE that leads to an industry-recognized credential. Very few States are planning to use this 3 percent set-aside for direct student services. And why? Well, it is because they feel like it cuts into their title I budget. 

So by level funding title I by cutting elsewhere, that means the 

title I dollars are going to have to go towards other things. And it 

means that States do not have the ability to really carry out the 

vision of the law that this committee set. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Courtney. 

Mr. Walberg, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you 

to the panel being here. And I would concur with Mr. Courtney as 

well that it would be a great opportunity and time when we have 

a chance to hear from our Secretary of Education. I believe my colleagues would be impressed with her as much as I am impressed 

with her abilities and yet, we also hope that there is a stopping of 

the stonewalling and blocking of confirmations that would assist 

her with people who can be undersecretaries, assistants, et cetera, 

to help in the process moving forward with something she has identified, ESSA, something she wants to implement as intended, as we 

intended fully. So I look forward to that as well. 

But today we have these witnesses here and, Ms. Nowicki, thank 

you for being here. In your testimony you mentioned that the Department is considering additional areas of guidance that might be 

needed for States as they implement ESSA. Has the Department 

said what those areas might be and how will they determine if that 

additional guidance is, in fact, needed? 

Ms. NOWICKI. Yes, sir. The Department has said that they are 

conducting a review of all of their current guidance that is available and looking for gaps or areas where States might need additional assistance. They have various ways to do that. They have 

mentioned webinars that they hold and meetings that provide a 

forum for States to share some concerns or some areas where they 

may need guidance. 

In our work, stakeholders who are working directly with States 

developing their plans mentioned a couple of areas as well. 

Mr. WALBERG. If you could highlight some of those? 

Ms. NOWICKI. Surely. One is how to select evidence-based strategies and measure their efficacy in the States. It is not unusual 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

57 

throughout government and in the States for there to be a lack of 

capacity in terms of knowing how to evaluate strategies. So that 

was one area. 

A second area was noting that because ESSA provides much 

more funding flexibility than did NCLB, helping States understand 

the broad funding flexibilities that they do have available to them 

and the law would be useful for States. 

Mr. WALBERG. And those flexibilities are just name a few of 

those? Flexibilities —— 

Ms. NOWICKI. Funding flexibilities to combine funding streams 

under the law in ways that they were not able to do under NCLB. 

Mr. WALBERG. With local States, et cetera? 

Ms. NOWICKI. Yes, different Federal and State local funds together. 

Mr. WALBERG. Okay. Ms. Nowicki, this is obviously an initial 

look at early implementation of ESSA, but do you believe there is 

future work GAO could do on this topic as States put the law into 

practice over the next few years? 

Ms. NOWICKI. Absolutely. I think in the shorter run two areas 

may be important. One, I think it will be important to pay attention to how Education’s monitoring protocols are shaping up. ESSA 

obviously encourages a much more State-driven approach in developing their plans and we would want to see monitoring protocols 

reflect that. Yet developing them in a way that also holds States 

accountable for Federal requirements may take some doing. 

Two, I think it will be important to look at how States are making the public aware of differences in school and district performance in their States and whether key stakeholders find that information useful. We like to say at GAO that data is only useful if 

it is used and that usefulness is in the eye of the beholder. So if 

stakeholders and parents are not able to access the information or 

do not find that it is telling them things that they would like to 

know, I think it would be important to know that. 

Mr. WALBERG. Well, I appreciate that and, Madam Chairwoman, 

I appreciate the fact as we heard that testimony we talked more 

about stakeholders at the local and State level as opposed to Federal and that is a good thing. 

Dr. Pletnick, thanks for being here. ESSA returns significant authority to school districts to determine how to intervene in and how 

to improve low-performing schools, which is important to consider 

if we are expecting education to reach the masses of our country. 

What initiatives are in place in your district or are you working to 

implement that will do just that? 

Ms. PLETNICK. Member Walberg, we have put in place a number 

of initiatives. First of all, when we are looking at each of our 

schools we take a proactive approach rather than reactive approach. So we make sure that the programs that we have in place 

are providing that high-quality education. We use an RTI process 

in which we have tiered intervention. So tier 1 is that classroom. 

We need high-quality teachers delivering high-quality instruction. 

And then if we do have our struggling students, especially in our 

underserved populations, we need to evaluate what it is their specific needs are. Again, I believe ESSA versus No Child Left Behind 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

58 

allows us to focus on that individual student, not just the aggregate. 

So we provide those interventions sometimes through interventionists. We have online programs because we really want access 

24/7 for our students in order to provide the supports they need. 

And again, the intensity of those interventions continues to grow 

as we work with the individual student to fill those needs. 

The other thing that we are doing across the district is personalized learning. So we are looking at what the students’ strengths 

are, certainly their area of challenges, but also their interests because we need to engage our students in their learning. We need 

them to own their own learning. 

So we are working on ways to really not only have them own 

that learning, understand about progress, but also ways that we 

could use space and place and pace differently. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Dr. Pletnick, I am going to have to ask you 

to wind up. 

Ms. PLETNICK. Thank you. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Mr. Polis, you are recognized. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member 

Scott, for holding this important education hearing. You know, 

when I first ran for Congress several years ago, one of the main 

reasons I ran was to fix our outdated education policy, No Child 

Left Behind. During my time on the State Board of Education in 

Colorado and as a school superintendent, I saw a lot of the flaws 

of No Child Left Behind firsthand and I was thrilled to work on 

the Every Student Succeeds Act in this committee, in the conference committee. A number of bills that I wrote were incorporated into that bill and I was very excited by a step forward that 

I think everybody felt was better than its predecessor. 

Now, I am troubled now by some of the comments I have heard 

from my Republican colleagues, who seem to be suggesting that 

since we passed the Every Student Succeeds Act, States can somehow do whatever they want. The goal of the Every Student Succeeds Act was to maintain, of course, our civil rights, guardrails, 

and safeguards, and, in fact, to provide school districts and States 

the flexibility to do what works, but not the flexibility to fail and 

to do nothing. 

No one here voted to let States and school districts fail when we 

passed the Every Student Succeeds Act. So we should not be surprised the Department of Education is providing meaningful and 

positive feedback to the States. It helps them to develop and implement their ESSA plans and that they will only approve plans that 

meet the law’s requirements. That was the requirements that we, 

as a body, you know, overwhelmingly voted to include in the actual 

law. 

Dr. Pletnick, I wanted to thank you for being here today. Really 

one of the ironies that I see is while the Department of Education 

is trying to do a good job providing feedback to States, at the same 

time, both by the President’s budget and the congressional Republicans’, they’re slashing funding for some of the key programs, and 

I want to highlight one in particular. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

59 

Colorado, like many other States, went through an extensive 

stakeholder engagement process to develop title II as part of our 

State plan for teacher and professional development. Last week, 

House Republicans moved forward with the budget that eliminates 

funding for title II, part A, the real significant funding stream for 

teacher professional development and classroom size reduction. 

How can States deal with this uncertainty around the use of 

funds for teacher and professional development and classroom size 

reduction that are already included in their plans if the funding 

goes away? 

Ms. PLETNICK. Thank you for that question. That is a problem. 

When there are funding cuts that means either the elimination or 

cutting back on programs and many of these are critical. I can tell 

you in the State of Arizona for title II the impact would be about 

$16.9 million in professional development. That is supporting more 

than 34,000 educators. Class size reduction would be impacted and 

that would impact about 137 positions that we have. And statewide 

the impact of the total title II elimination would be about $32.5 

million. So it would have a devastating impact in those areas. 

Mr. POLIS. And given that those education plans included the use 

of that money for teacher training classroom reduction, does that 

mean that it will send, in effect, States back to the drawing board 

for their title II plans and their teacher training plans? 

Ms. PLETNICK. I think that would be correct because our budgets 

are very tight and so, again, when we have elimination of funding, 

that means you have to go back and look at your programs. And 

quite frankly, all of the programs that we have in our own district 

I can say are essential, including those that we provide for professional development. 

Mr. POLIS. And for Mr. Lovell I wanted to ask, you know, one 

area where we also made progress in the Every Student Succeeds 

Act is early learning, the most important, the studies show, investment in early childhood education. We authorized a new preschool 

development grant program. The law will hopefully facilitate better 

collaboration between early learning and K–12. Can you talk about 

how States so far are taking advantage of new opportunities to 

support early learning under ESSA and what lessons we can learn 

from some of the States that have submitted their early learning 

components and their plan? 

Mr. LOVELL. Thank you, Mr. Polis. Well, really the answer to 

that question goes back to your first question, which is that plans 

that might be in place or ideas that we might have are going to 

be severely undercut if there is no resources to fund them. And so 

you have cuts that are being proposed both by the administration, 

by the House Labor-H Committee, you have got cuts being pondered for Medicaid. You put all that together and it is hard for 

States to really envision something robust and necessary and costly 

like a robust early childhood program. 

Mr. POLIS. Yeah, and I think, you know, to clarify what you are 

saying, when our committee writes the authorizing legislation, the 

Every Student Succeeds Act, it’s only as good as the funding that 

actually funds those programs that we authorize. 

Dr. Wright, can you briefly share more about what Mississippi 

is doing in early learning? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

60 

Ms. WRIGHT. Absolutely, and thank you for that. We passed a 

law establishing early learning collaboratives. That was the first 

time that we went into that foray. We are also looking and monitoring the results of that. We, with our kindergarten assessment, 

we realized that two-thirds of our children that were entering kindergarten were not prepared. So we knew that there was a need 

for pre-K. 

And so now we are also reaching out to all of the pre-K, public 

or private, in order to provide them with professional development. 

We do that free of charge to anyone that teaches three- or fouryear-olds in our State. And we honestly believe that it is a lever 

that is going to make a difference in the State of Mississippi. So 

we have a lot of interest in that and a lot of infrastructure that 

we are putting toward that. 

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentlelady. And just in brief closing, I will 

just inquire of the chair if we have invited or plan to invite Secretary Devos for an oversight hearing before our committee as well. 

And I will yield back with that inquiry. 

Chairwoman FOXX. The gentleman yields back. We do plan to invite her. 

Mr. Guthrie, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for yielding. I 

appreciate the time. And this question is actually—is based on the 

testimony from Dr. Wright but, Dr. Pletnick, I would like for you 

to answer this as well, but it is based on Dr. Wright’s testimony 

would be applicable I am sure. It says one in Kentucky, Education 

Commissioner Stephen Pruitt in the Kentucky Department of Education, found similar successes in hosting town halls across the 

State, engaging partner organizations, and accepting public comment in order to craft a new assessment of the accountability system. 

When it was all said and done, the Department received an input 

of 6,000 Kentuckians on the matter. Based on the feedback you received in your town halls, what were the biggest changes stakeholders wanted to see reflected in your State plan? 

Ms. WRIGHT. They wanted to see more communication between 

schools and districts. They also were interested in not necessarily 

defining teacher effectiveness by years of experience and licensure, 

but by linking it more to student outcomes. And that we heard loud 

and clear. They really viewed an effective teacher as one that produced positive outcomes in children. 

And so those are two key pieces, if you will. There were several, 

but those were two that we take to heart. We are already in the 

process of designing resources that we have continued to push out 

to our districts and our schools to help them better engage with 

parents at the local level. And also we are revising our whole 

teacher evaluation system to really look at it as more of a professional birth system and driving that around linking it to our student outcomes, which is what we are hearing from our constituents. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Okay, Dr. Pletnick, did you have similar experiences? 

Ms. PLETNICK. We did, and there was a great deal of discussion 

around those multiple indicators and really redefining ready, what 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

61 

future-ready means. So there was discussion about the career and 

college index. There was discussion about what are those other significant and meaningful indicators that would keep us transparent 

and help our parents, our community understand the accountability system and what student success looks like. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Okay. What kind of examples of indicators did 

you—were you —— 

Ms. PLETNICK. So in the end we, as I had mentioned earlier, we 

do have college and career indicators. We do also have indicators 

around other national assessments that are utilized as kind of 

opening or gatekeepers into higher education. We do have advanced coursework as well. 

So there really is a very long list of indicators that are now considered as part of our accountability. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. How are you, once this is all implemented and 

moving forward, planning, like, additional town halls to try to continue to seek feedback for continuous improvement or what kind of 

methods are you going to try to still have stakeholder feedback? 

Continue what you are doing? 

Ms. PLETNICK. I would hope that at our State level with our state 

department, and there is no reason to believe that won’t be the 

case, that we will continue to look at what is in place, analyze the 

data we are collecting, and see how we can refine and improve 

moving forward. 

Ms. WRIGHT. And that is exactly what Mississippi is planning on 

doing. We want to stay engaged with our stakeholders. They have 

invested a lot of time and energy in this. I have also got a very 

large ESSA advisory council that I intend to keep onboard with 

very diverse group of folks. So we have got to make sure that we 

are meeting the needs of our constituents and those are two very 

strong ways that we can do that. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you very much. And I have one for Ms. 

Nowicki. I have heard concerns from the Kentucky Department of 

Education that the department has provided that your Department 

here, the Federal Department, has provided inconsistent feedback 

to States that submitted plans early when compared one to another. Is this something the GAO has found to be true? And if so, 

what is the Department doing to provide consistent guidance? 

Ms. NOWICKI. Yes, sir. So GAO, as you know, does not have a 

statutory or other role in reviewing State plans. At the time that 

we did our work there were only a couple of plans that had been 

submitted in draft for feedback. So we did not have any information from the Department about feedback on the plans at the time 

we did our work. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Do you have a—well, okay. So you did your study 

before you would have been able to see whether there was inconsistent —— 

Ms. NOWICKI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GUTHRIE.—feedback, one plan against one and one plan 

against another? That is something that we hopefully will be able 

to look into as we move forward. 

Mr. LOVELL. I mean, if I may? 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Yeah. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

62 

Mr. LOVELL. I can provide some thoughts on this. I mean, I think 

that there definitely were areas where feedback was inconsistent. 

I think part of it has to do with the fact that without the regulations, there are fewer specific rules around some of the vague areas 

in the law. 

So one area where—and a question came up earlier around areas 

that the Department could provide future guidance in. I think one 

area, as Dr. Pletnick was describing, the various indicators that 

can be selected, this is an area where the law gives States flexibility and even provides some examples of the indicators that 

States can use. 

A number of States are interested in really prioritizing college 

and career readiness. So they are including things like access and 

performance in advanced placement, international baccalaureate, 

dual enrollment, early college. Feedback to one State was somewhat negative about the State’s approach to this and we are fearful 

that feedback like that without additional guidance as to how those 

things can be included in the accountability could put the freeze on 

State innovation and doing what we all want States to be doing. 

After all, the law specifically says that States can include access 

and performance on advanced coursework. And then when a State 

tried to do it, they got a little pushback from the Department. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Mr. Lovell? 

Mr. LOVELL. So I think that is an area where you have some additional guidance. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Mr. Lovell? 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you. That was helpful. My time is expired 

and I yield back. Thank you for those comments. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Yes, sir. 

Ms. Bonamici, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member Scott, for holding this important hearing about the implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act. I want to also join my 

colleagues who expressed their opinion, and I agree that it would 

be very helpful to hear from the Secretary and the Department as 

we are talking about implementation. 

I worked on education issues in my home State of Oregon at the 

local level and then in the State legislature and it quickly became 

clear that the real work needed to be done at the Federal level. 

And so at the top of my legislative agenda list when I joined Congress was rewriting No Child Left Behind. And I was thrilled to 

serve on the committee when we worked on Every Student Succeeds Act and on the conference committee and be there at the bill 

signing and it was a great day. And it was looking forward to implementation. 

So needless to say, I was disappointed earlier in the year when 

the majority instead of talking about which regulations were problematic and which they could support, instead got rid of all of them 

through the Congressional Review Act and blocked important regulations related to statewide accountability systems, consolidated 

plans, and data reporting. 

And then at the same time, the new administration, left without 

their implementing regulations, attempted to rush through revised 

guidance for peer reviewers, and there was a modified template for 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

63 

State plans, and new explanatory documents, and all of this was 

taking place less than a month before the initial deadline for submitting the plans, and after many States were well on their way 

to completing their plans. 

So I do not think we should be surprised that there has been uncertainty and confusion. Disappointed, yes, but not surprised. And 

in fact, without the ESSA regulations, now there’s a conversation 

about which NCLB regulations are still in effect and what do we 

do about those. 

So what we really need is for the Department to play a reliable 

role in enforcing compliance with the statutory requirements and 

the law and clearing up areas of ambiguity and helping States take 

advantage of the flexibility that is such an important part of the 

law. And I know in my home State of Oregon, I had conversations 

as they were working on their plan about the lack of certainty. 

And they appreciate the flexibility, but do not want to go down 

a path and then months later be told that you can’t go down that 

path. So Mr. Lovell, in the Department’s feedback letter to my 

State of Oregon, the Department noted that Oregon’s plan proposed 

to include in the students with disabilities subgroup, students who 

had previously been identified as students with disabilities, but 

have exited that status recently. The Department said Oregon cannot use that flexibility even though it was permitted in the accountability regulations that were finalized when they were writing 

their plan. 

So can you describe other instances where a State has actually 

lost flexibility because of Congress’s action to block important implementing regulations? 

Mr. LOVELL. Sure. So one area where we lost flexibility is in the 

ability of States to provide credit to their schools where kids are 

performing above proficiency. So we would like to be able to really 

prioritize higher thinking skills and one way that you could that 

is by providing credit for students that are performing above proficiency. The law very specifically says that kids should be—that 

the academic achievement indicator needs to measure proficiency. 

So it is questionable as to whether you can actually provide credit for students that are performing above proficient. As a result, 

you have some States, one in particular that I could think of, 

where they are not measuring proficiency at all, which is also not 

consistent with the law. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Right. 

Mr. LOVELL. So I totally agree with you, the removal of the regulation on top of a new template less than 30 days before the applications were due did cause a decent amount of confusion. And I 

think that had the regulation been in place, we wouldn’t see some 

of the inconsistences that we are seeing. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. And I also want to follow up, we have 

heard a lot of talk about the importance of stakeholder engagement 

and that was a really critical component of the Every Student Succeeds Act. And, Mr. Lovell, the Department’s revised template does 

not include explicit questions about stakeholder engagement, as 

well as other important requirements of ESSA, including provisions 

related to homeless and foster youth. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

64 

And I know you have reviewed the State plans. And how has the 

Department’s decision to exclude those statutory requirements affected the development of State plans? And based on your review 

of State plans, are States actually meeting these requirements of 

the Every Student Succeeds Act? 

Mr. LOVELL. So thank you very much for that question. You 

know, if it is not written, you don’t whether it is happening or not. 

And so I agree that especially around some of our most vulnerable 

kids, our homeless students, and our kids in foster care, not having 

specific questions for those students means that we don’t know 

what is going to be happening. That said, just because it is not in 

the template doesn’t mean that those requirements don’t exist. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Right. 

Mr. LOVELL. So it is very important that we still carry out and 

oversee the implementation of those provisions even if the questions were not asked in the template. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. More need for certainty and, Madam 

Chairwoman, as I yield back, I want to take just a moment to acknowledge my senior legislative assistant, Adrian Anderson, who 

has worked with me for several years on this committee on the 

Every Student Succeeds Act especially. And he is leaving at the 

end of the month to go to law school and I just want to thank him. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. 

Mr. Barletta, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. Dr. Pletnick, thank you for your testimony and for being here today. There are studies showing that 

poor attendance can impact academic achievement, ultimately leading to lower reading and math scores. We know that chronic absenteeism negatively affects students’ success and this has led to some 

States to propose absenteeism as an additional accountability 

measure in their ESSA plans. 

We also know there is evidence that quality afterschool and summer learning programs are cost-effective strategies in increasing 

student attendance at all grade levels. I have seen this firsthand 

through an afterschool organization in my district, the SHINE Program. 

SHINE focuses on project-based learning with an emphasis on a 

STEM curriculum. It gets kids excited about learning again. And 

it is proven to work. Ninety-two percent of SHINE students had exceptionally good or satisfactory school attendance. Ninety-seven 

percent of students indicated they were excited about STEM and 

the numbers of students who said they would like to study math 

or science in college increased by 14 percent. 

The numbers speak for themselves. When students are excited 

about learning, they show up for class and feel personally invested 

in their education, setting themselves up for success down the road. 

Can you speak to how State ESSA plans may be encouraging 

school districts to leverage title I and title IV funds to provide 

afterschool and summer learning opportunities to their students, 

and how can districts partner with community-based organizations 

to address problems like chronic absenteeism? 

Ms. PLETNICK. Thank you for that question. And in fact, in Arizona, that was one of the indicators that we wanted to include because we do see some of those same results that you have. And I 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

65 

can speak to my own district, but also neighboring districts, with 

our underserved populations especially, having those afterschool 

opportunities serve many purposes, but certainly engage students 

in their learning. And we, too, have opportunities to have coding, 

to have STEM, those really critical skills that students enjoy being 

a part of. 

What we have also seen is through those programs we have increased parent involvement because they are able to engage with 

their students in those activities. So truly by using our funding, 

title I, title IV, those types of programs we believe are having a 

positive impact academically on our underserved populations. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time, 

Madam Chair. Thank you. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Barletta. 

Mr. Takano, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. Pletnick, well, first of all, congratulations on being named 

president-elect of the AASA. Given the fact that you must be familiar with that organization’s position on the ESSA regulations rolled 

back under the CRA in February, I was hoping you would be able 

to explain the reversal of AASA’s position. 

When the final regulations regarding accountability were released, your organization endorsed them, recognizing that your 

three major concerns were addressed. Then in February, when they 

were up for discussion and rollback, your organization supported 

the CRA. What changed between November and February and why 

this dramatic turnaround? 

Ms. PLETNICK. Again, as an organization we truly support what 

is in the best interest of all of our schools. And certainly, when the 

regulations—I had an opportunity, in fact, to testify in front of a 

Senate committee about those regulations. 

And again, although there were some changes that were made in 

terms of those, we did not feel that, indeed, as a package there 

weren’t some issues or concerns with those. So I think AASA’s position was about making certain that we have the most flexibility 

and autonomy as we move forward in order to implement ESSA in 

terms of the spirit of the law. 

Mr. TAKANO. But, Ms. Pletnick, I still don’t understand why the 

change. I mean, you have spoken in very general terms. What explains this reversal of position? You supported the regulations 

when they were first promulgated and then suddenly your organization turns around, does a reversal. They support the Congressional Review Act overturning those regulations. 

I mean, in my mind, the regulations allowed for the implementation of ESSA. What is your—I mean, I don’t have a sense of you 

explaining the one. Will you give an adequate explanation? 

Ms. PLETNICK. I apologize for not being clear. Again, I am speaking in broader terms in terms of when you look at —— 

Mr. TAKANO. Is there one specific, one or two specifics you can 

name? 

Ms. PLETNICK. Again, I would ask that I be allowed to provide 

that opportunity for the record going back to AASA —— 

Mr. TAKANO. Okay. 

Ms. PLETNICK.—in order to provide that. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

66 

Mr. TAKANO. That is fine. That is fine. I would love to hear those 

specifics, read those specifics. Between both the President’s budget 

proposal and the fiscal year 2018 House Labor Bill, more than $2 

billion in funding for title II–A of ESEA, the largest Federal funding stream directly supporting teachers and school leaders in 90 

percent of school districts will be completely eliminated, completely 

eliminated. In your role as superintendent and now being president-elect for AASA, how would the elimination of title II–A funding nationwide affect your abilities to support teachers and implement ESSA? 

Ms. PLETNICK. I would share that the most critical resource that 

we have in our schools are our human resources and that is especially true of our teachers who touch our students every day. So not 

having that funding in order to support the professional development that would allow them to continue to ensure that we have the 

strategies needed to serve our underserved populations as well as 

all. 

Also monies are used in our districts to reduce class size. So 

again, an increase in class size would be an issue if title II was 

eliminated. And certainly, what we would find is that it would be 

very difficult for schools to continue programs like peer mentoring, 

other things that title II provides opportunities for us to do without 

that funding. 

Mr. TAKANO. So is it fair to say that your organization would 

strongly support restoration of this funding? 

Ms. PLETNICK. Yes. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you. I yield back, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Takano. 

Mr. Allen, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx, and thank you for 

being here with us today. You know, ESSA was a significant bipartisan achievement that we initiated to empower State and local 

education decision-making while attempting to restrain some of the 

authority of the Secretary of Education, particularly at the local 

level. 

Since the law has been enacted, my State of Georgia has been 

diligent working with over 140 stakeholders to create a State plan. 

Of course, we call this the bottom-up approach rather than the 

Federal top-down approach. Georgia has gone to great lengths to 

maximize the flexibility provided by ESSA to support its vision of 

offering a holistic education to each and every child in the State. 

Of course, I support this vision and our State’s commitment to 

engaging Georgians in this plan development. Of course, I look forward to working with the Department and its interpretation of 

ESSA does not exceed the intent and limits of the law. Our goal 

here is to achieve every child succeeds. 

So Dr. Wright, have you been encountering some of the same 

problems that Georgia has as far as, you know, bringing stakeholders together and then submitting the plan to the Federal Department of Education and getting pushback? 

Ms. WRIGHT. We have not yet submitted our plan. We are going 

to be submitting in September, but we have had absolutely no 

problem gathering stakeholders. There is a lot of people out there 

that want to have their voice heard around what they consider 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

67 

most important for our children. And so that has been a very exciting and invigorating process actually meeting all across the State 

with our stakeholders. 

Mr. ALLEN. We have experienced that in Georgia as well, which, 

like you said, is a very good thing. 

Ms. Pletnick, what has your experience been as far as working 

with the Department of Education, the Federal Department of Education? 

Ms. PLETNICK. In terms of the Federal Department —— 

Mr. ALLEN. Trying to get a plan approved. Where are you in that 

process and —— 

Ms. PLETNICK. So Arizona has submitted their plan, so it would 

be for that submission date of September 2017. We have not yet 

received feedback on the plan. 

Mr. ALLEN. You have not? Okay. Do you see as far as what you 

are trying to implement, is there any lack of interpretation of exactly what you think the law that we passed says versus what you 

are trying to accomplish? 

Ms. PLETNICK. I think the Arizona plan reflects the ESSA law 

and so we feel confident in our ability then to have that approved 

and move forward on the implementation. 

Mr. ALLEN. Okay. Ms. Wright, Dr. Wright, do you, I mean, do 

you feel like what you are trying to do reflects the law that we 

passed in every respect? 

Ms. WRIGHT. Absolutely. We have had no difficulty whatsoever 

with working within the guardrails that are provided and with as 

much input as we have had, as I said, we have had over 7,000 

pieces of feedback. I meet with the superintendents on a monthly 

basis, my advisory committee, my teacher advisory committee, the 

principal’s advisory committee, we are meeting with those folks on 

a regular basis to get their input. 

But when we come together then to start the formation of the 

plan, we have not had any difficulty whatsoever in abiding by the 

guardrails. 

Mr. ALLEN. Well, that is great to hear because it is really exciting to see the efforts that are being put forth by the States to make 

sure that every student succeeds. And I want to thank you and 

congratulate you on what you are doing and I yield back. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Allen. 

Ms. Davis, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. DAVIS. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all of you 

for being with us today. You know, one of the things that I have 

been thinking about sitting here that has not been addressed so 

much is just the capacity right now of the Department of Education 

to work with States, to work with districts in looking at all of these 

plans. 

And, you know, so I really inquired about the number of vacancies. And when you look at that, 12 out of 15 nominees have not 

even been put forward or 70 percent of senior staff is vacant. Just 

thinking about which ones those are, the deputy secretary, there 

has been no nominee put forward for the assistant secretary for 

civil rights. 

We have an acting person who has been quite under fire, as you 

probably know. There is no nominee for the assistant secretary for 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

68 

elementary and secondary education, no nominee for the assistant 

secretary for planning, evaluation, and policy development. No 

nomination for the Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. No nominee for the assistant secretary for 

career, technical, and adult education, and we have talked about 

that in the capacity of districts. 

Ms. Nowicki, as the GAO representative here, how does that capacity affect the ability of States to move forward? 

Ms. NOWICKI. Yes, ma’am. I think, you know, to the degree that 

there is no political leadership in place in any Federal agency, I 

think that does, you know, certainly play a role in the ability of the 

very talented and dedicated civil servants in any Federal agency. 

I think you are respectfully trying to not get out in front of, you 

know, where an administration may wish to go. 

Ms. DAVIS. Yeah, I think so because, as you said, they are dedicated, but when you are in limbo, when you are waiting for leadership and direction, that is a difficult thing to do. I don’t know, Mr. 

Lovell, do you want to comment on that as well? How much of a 

problem is it? Maybe it is not a problem. 

Mr. LOVELL. Sure. No, I think that is definitely a problem. When 

you combine lack of staff capacity with lack of clarity as a result 

of the rescission of the regulation, it really puts a lot of pressure 

on the career staff to go through these hundreds and hundreds of 

pages of material. It is complex. It is dense. I think that there are 

certainly areas that warrant clarification, such as when a State 

submits a plan and the question in the template requires a State 

to define the term ‘‘consistently underperforming students.’’ 

And then when a State responds by saying we will identify lowperforming students, what does that mean? Without the regulation 

in place you don’t have a whole lot of guidance to determine what 

that means or what that doesn’t mean, if it is consistent with the 

law or if it is not. 

So the Department’s feedback basically now is serving as that 

guidance and States have to—are looking at that really closely to 

see, well, what rules do I have to follow? 

Ms. DAVIS. Sure, yeah. And I think you mentioned earlier that 

when it comes to some of those regulations, looking at whether career and tech, you mentioned that. We also talked earlier about the 

consistency about higher level thinking skills and where that is 

placed as well. In addition to that issue, of course, we have the 

budget issues that have been discussed. And I am wondering what 

the impact of deeper cuts to education will have on the ability of 

States to really serve our most vulnerable students. 

And one of those areas we have included a requirement in ESSA 

for 95 percent of all students in each subgroup to participate in annual assessment to ensure that low-performing students are not 

encouraged to be absent on test day. One particular example, and 

if we are disaggregating data, that is going to be a very important 

effort that moves forward for all students. 

How are States implementing this policy and how is the Department of Education going to oversee that given the situation they 

have? 

Mr. LOVELL. So you have raised two issues, one around funding 

and one around the 95 percent test participation requirement, and 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

69 

let me address those both. So on the funding I want to go back to 

actually a comment raised by Mr. Barletta. He asked about how 

States were being able to leverage title I and title IV dollars for 

afterschool programs. 

Specifically, with regard to title IV it is pretty hard to leverage 

something that doesn’t exist. Title IV has been so woefully underfunded that it is questionable how those dollars are going to be 

able to be used. Authorized level was $1.6 billion. Last year $400 

million was provided. That is less than a third of the authorized 

amount. So being able to use those dollars for things like afterschool programs is a real problem. 

The 95 percent participation rate is also a real problem. One 

place where the Department has not been inconsistent is in consistently not mentioning the 95 percent test participation requirement. 

There are a number of States that either simply say we are not 

going to abide by this part of the law or have too little, very little 

of an explanation as to how they are going to, and mum has been 

the word on the 95 percent test participation requirement. 

Ms. DAVIS. Any other comments that you all would like to make 

to those questions? I know we don’t have any time left hardly. 

I think, you know, this is really an important hearing and I 

think when we look back a few years from now to sort of see how 

did it go, how was it implemented, I think what you have provided 

today, all of you, has been helpful. Thank you very much. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Ms. Davis. 

Mr. Mitchell, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you, Madam Chair. Upon the passage of 

ESSA, the Wall Street Journal noted, and this is a quote that, ‘‘It 

represented the largest devolution of Federal control to the States 

in a quarter century.’’ Unfortunately, the previous administration 

apparently did not endorse that bipartisan bill. 

In fact, the previous chair and the chair in the Senate submitted 

a letter to the Secretary, 30 pages of concerns and objections to the 

proposed regulations that, frankly, were largely ignored. The minority here wishes to relitigate the discussion regarding the CRA 

and the elimination of the rules that were put forth by the previous 

administration. 

Let me give you some areas of concerns. The 95 percent that you 

referenced, however, the final rule referenced only four options and 

requires schools to implement a plan to address those. There is a 

whole series of things the Department did that overreached the intent of this Congress or the previous Congress and this committee. 

I wasn’t here at the time, but, frankly, voted in favor of the CRA 

because I am offended by the fact that a bill is put forward by this 

House and Senate that the administration decided it didn’t meet 

their expectations to do as they wanted. That is not the way this 

government works. 

So rather than spend quality time, frankly, whining about the 

CRA, we ought to get on and talk about the effect of the address 

of the needs of students of education. 

Question for you, Dr. Wright, if you could, please? Could you describe some of the means by which you attained what you consider 

to be quality stakeholder engagement? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

70 

Ms. WRIGHT. We scheduled meetings around the State and we 

scheduled them at two different times. We scheduled a total of 15 

initially, but that does not count all the other specific stakeholder 

groups that we met with. These were regional meetings. We scheduled our first one typically in the afternoon, somewhere around 

3:00, so that those people that were available could be there. 

But we scheduled the second one in that same area typically 

starting at 6 or 6:30, so that we could ensure that our parents that 

were working would have an opportunity to get there after they got 

off work. So we made sure that we tried to cover all areas of the 

State and also in reaching out, our ESSA advisory group is one 

that has a diverse group of individuals on it. 

We met with them on a regular basis. As I have mentioned to 

you before, I have got a superintendents advisory committee that 

I meet with on a monthly basis. I meet with my teachers every 

other month. And so it gave us an opportunity to really hear from 

a lot of people. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you. Dr. Pletnick, as well, most important 

stakeholders, we call them stakeholders here, they are parents. Let 

us be honest about it. What did you do to make sure that we got 

effective parental engagement in this process? They felt that they 

were heard? 

Ms. PLETNICK. In Arizona, there were a number of committees 

and subgroups that were established and they would have representatives from all stakeholders group. So certainly our parents 

are important, our business partners are important. All of those 

people were represented on the various committees. And in addition, we did have a survey and anyone could provide feedback, for 

instance, on our measures of success, those indicators that we were 

including. 

There were also, again, meetings that were held across the State, 

a number of meetings, where people could come and engage, ask 

questions, get clarification, and provide feedback. 

Mr. MITCHELL. What percentage of your parents responded to the 

survey approximately? 

Ms. PLETNICK. I honestly do not have those numbers with me, 

but I know it was open and there was good participation in it. I 

do not have exact numbers. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Well, I am sure it is open. I wasn’t questioning 

that. My concern is that we do everything we can to maximize the 

engagement of parents in how this is structured and engage them 

in the educational process so they have every reason to participate 

with their children. So that is critical and I would ask, Ms. 

Nowicki, if we could make sure as we look at, I know you have 

nothing to do with the operation, but going forward in terms of the 

effectiveness, that we look at the effectiveness of engaging not only 

stakeholders, teacher groups, those types of things, but parents in 

the process prospectively and after it is underway. Can we assure 

that is going to happen? 

Ms. NOWICKI. We would be happy to work with the committee on 

any requests that they wish to submit having us look at stakeholder and parent involvement, absolutely. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

71 

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Chair, I would ask that we at least consider that as we go forward in assessing the effectiveness of ESSA, 

that we ensure parental—look at the effectiveness of engagement. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Mitchell. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Last question for you if we could, I guess is that 

it would be about the last stage of ESSA is identify and assist 

school districts that are low performers. Michigan has some legendary low-performing school districts, unfortunately. A variety of 

things have been done to try to address that. 

My question for you would be, also, Ms. Nowicki, is there a process by which you are going to assess the effectiveness? Have you 

identified, one, whether the plans are effective at addressing lowperforming school districts? 

Ms. NOWICKI. Yes, sir. I think when we have an opportunity to 

see the monitoring protocols that the Department eventually develops, that is one of the things that we would be interested in looking 

at how they are approaching that. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I would be curious if the other two educational 

witnesses, Dr. Pletnick and Dr. Wright, if we get any feedback just 

of how you are going to monitor that because it seems to be a 

plaguing problem in some States. Clearly it is in Michigan, and we 

need to not only talk about what we are—how we are assessing 

them, but how we are supporting them and are we getting improvements or are we just spinning our wheels and students are 

being lost? 

Ms. WRIGHT. Well, actually, it is one of the goals in our strategic 

plan that all schools and all districts will be rated C or higher. And 

so our focus to do that, we have an A through F system, was to 

identify the lowest performing schools. We are going to be using 

subgroup data to do that. 

We have also got a protocol in place that we have required all 

of our low-performing schools to come in for a personal interview, 

which includes their board members, their principals, et cetera. 

And then go through the protocol with them about what we are 

going to be monitoring and how frequently. 

The bottom line for me as the State superintendent is, are student outcomes improving? 

Mr. MITCHELL. That is right. 

Ms. WRIGHT. And that is where we are coming from. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you and I yield back. Thank you for your 

patience. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Mitchell. 

Dr. Pletnick, if you could respond to Mr. Mitchell in writing, I 

would appreciate it. 

Mr. Grijalva, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Madam Chair. Dr. Pletnick, welcome, 

and I am glad you are here. I want to talk—ask some questions 

about some mitigating factors in terms of how the State plan is approved, when it is approved and the implementation of ESSA in 

Arizona in the public school districts. 

Mitigating plans points being, you know, Arizona, along with 

Mississippi, are at the five lowest States in terms of per people expenditures to the public schools; Arizona is about $3,300 under the 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

72 

national average. So that lack of State support in terms of public 

instruction is a constant in Arizona. 

It has been litigated. It has been referendumed. It continues to 

happen yearly at the State level. But now let me ask, so that is 

a constant. And you couple that with the cuts that are being proposed in the education budget and that is an additional layer of 

lack of support upon the public schools in Arizona and across the 

country. 

But then you have also the threat of public funds going to private school vouchers, for-profit charter schools; they are very real 

now given President Trump and Secretary Devos’ singular focus on 

that concept. Under the repealed regulation charter schools are 

going to be held accountable through an authorizer’s reporting. 

Now, without that regulation that has been repealed, they will be 

even less accountable because of that. 

And the proliferation of for-profit charter schools in Arizona, 

charter schools in general, don’t you think that regulatory requirement would help to improve the transparency of the State’s charter 

sector, Doctor? 

Ms. PLETNICK. So what I would say is I truly do believe in accountability. So I do believe if any school system receives Federal 

or State funding that they should be held to the same accountability as every other because I think that is about transparency. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And, you know, I also mentioned the Affordable Care Act, $26 million goes to the State of Arizona for Medicaid to 

work with children with disabilities. That is $26 million that if the 

repeal scenario is what we are talking about now, then that would 

be, again, another layer of nonsupport that would not be there particularly for disabled kids. 

During the discussion, I am assuming that the discussion of a 

national voucher tax credit proposal, probably using a tax reform 

vehicle probably, that is modeled after State programs like the one 

we have in Arizona, do you feel that Arizona’s voucher program is 

indeed helping students? And would you recommend as a national 

policy that we model a national policy after Arizona’s voucher program? 

Ms. PLETNICK. I am here at the invitation of Chairperson Foxx 

to speak on ESSA implementation. And so I am not as prepared 

for this hearing to speak to that. Certainly, I could provide additional information regarding it, but there is certainly an impact 

when we have expansion of those programs. And we know that at 

the State level. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And if it is public money that is being diverted to 

those programs, as a consequence it is less another layer of nonsupport from the public schools in Arizona. 

Ms. PLETNICK. There is an impact on it. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. So we have those mitigating factors. Where is the 

State plan at this point? Waiting for review? What is the story on 

that? 

Ms. PLETNICK. Yes. It was submitted so that it was submitted I 

believe in May, which would make it for that deadline in September for review. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And you heard the complaints, I am sure. Many 

parents, stakeholders, educational groups relative to the fact that 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

73 

the access and the lack of real dialogue in terms of what that plan 

was going to be that was, I think, essentially run out of the governor’s office, that there was some opposition and discomfort with 

the way the plan was put together, correct? 

Ms. PLETNICK. So again, I think that there are components in the 

plan, as I had shared. I do not think that it is a perfect plan. So 

I believe there needs to be continued dialogue as we look at what 

we need to do to continue to drive improvement, especially for our 

underserved populations in Arizona. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And thank you very much. I appreciate that. But 

without resources, asking public school systems to meet any benchmark and we see eroding support at the State level, at the national 

level, and at all levels for our public schools, I think you are putting not only the school system in a bad place. You are putting parents in a bad place and you are jeopardizing a lot of children. And 

with that, I yield back. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Grijalva. 

Mr. Smucker, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SMUCKER. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Dr. Wright, in your testimony you mention the opportunities to 

expand career and technical education to the classrooms of our elementary and secondary students. And I know there has been some 

discussion about this. I apologize if it is a duplicate question. 

But, you know, it is a top priority of this committee and a top 

priority of mine as well. Pennsylvania is working on developing 

their own State plan in response to ESSA and just wonder what 

ideas you may have for Pennsylvania and other States to integrate 

career and technical education into those plans. 

Ms. WRIGHT. Well, that is one thing that we have been very 

proud of is working with our businesses around the State. We serve 

on the State’s Workforce Investment Board and I think having a 

seat at the table, I think, has a very powerful reality for us. We 

then separate the State into the local workforce boards and have 

been working directly with them. 

They have been very receptive to our work. We are intending to 

create, as I said earlier, those CTE plans in high school, but we are 

also looking to see how early we can start some of these plans in 

middle school because I think some of our children, we realize that 

not everybody wants to go to college. 

But everybody deserves the right to have a wonderful job as soon 

as they, you know, walk across our stage. And so our job is to ensure that all of our children are career and college ready. We are 

also redoing our diploma options, to be honest with you. We have 

got one that is going to have a CTE endorsement and that is going 

to be a nationally recognized endorsement that children will be 

able to go right to work if that is what they so choose. 

But I think the key for us is the developing in our economy and 

that the way to do that is to ensure that we have got a strong 

workforce out there that can do that. And the children that are in 

our classrooms are the ones that are going—we are going to be depending on. So we have got to ensure that they have got the academic skills to do that, but they also have to have the career and 

technical skills to do that as well. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

74 

Mr. SMUCKER. You mentioned a national endorsement? What is 

that? 

Ms. WRIGHT. Yeah. We are looking at the number of national endorsements that students can have, certifications that they can 

have. We have got a large number of different manufacturing companies. Toyota has a big presence. Nissan has a big presence. 

Ingalls Shipbuilding has a presence. The Stennis Space Center has 

a big presence. 

So we have got a huge medical area as well, as well as some of 

the smaller businesses that are looking for people to come to their 

employment. As I said earlier, about 65 percent of the jobs that are 

available are children that are going to need middle schools. 

Mr. SMUCKER. So that certification or endorsement would be part 

of their diploma as well? 

Ms. WRIGHT. Yes. 

Mr. SMUCKER. Okay. 

Ms. WRIGHT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SMUCKER. Interesting idea. Next question. This would be for 

both Dr. Wright and Dr. Pletnick. Yesterday I had the honor of 

welcoming Chairwoman Foxx to my district and we had a roundtable discussion with education leaders from across the district and 

industry stakeholders as well. And a topic came up that I have 

heard a lot about in the State senate in my State, and chair of the 

education committee. 

I am just curious what your States are doing in regards to standardized testing. Superintendents who were there and who have 

heard from the past few years have felt that there has been sort 

of an undue or too much emphasis, I guess, on having all students 

achieve a certain standard as opposed to, I think today we have 

technology or we have education available to provide more individualized learning to meet a student exactly where they are, and help 

all students achieve to their full potential. 

So I guess I am curious how both of your States are responding 

to that? 

Ms. WRIGHT. Well, in Mississippi, we have established and 

adopted a set of very rigorous standards pre-K through grade 12. 

And I think we owe it to our parents and our community to be very 

transparent about what our children should know and be able to 

do by the time they leave 12th grade. It is going to be they depend 

on us each and every day to ensure that their children are getting 

what they deserve. 

And so I feel very strongly that you have got to have a strong 

set of standards in place that are going to enable children to be 

successful when they leave us. And so that is how—that is the approach that we have and that is the approach that we are sticking 

to. 

Mr. SMUCKER. Dr. Pletnick, could you respond? 

Ms. PLETNICK. So in Arizona, we do have what is called the Arizona Merit and that is aligned to our standards. Our standards, 

too, are very rigorous, but as a superintendent, I also believe that 

there are many other skills and dispositions that we have to ensure 

students have before they leave us if they are to be future ready. 

I think about the fact that I really didn’t have to think about 

coding when I was in elementary, yet that is a skill that is a fuCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

75 

ture-ready skill. When we talk about the four Cs, communication 

and critical thinking, all of those things, so I think there have to 

be multiple measures and that is what we have worked towards in 

Arizona in terms of our CC&R indicators. 

So one test can give us some feedback, but we need multiple indicators to get the true picture of student success and school success. 

Mr. SMUCKER. Thank you. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Smucker. 

Ms. Blunt Rochester, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and 

also Ranking Member Scott, and also thank you to the panel. I was 

really pleased to hear that our chairwoman has invited Secretary 

Devos to our committee. Education and ESSA implementation is 

probably one of the things that I have heard most from Delawareans, whether it is the champions in civil rights that I talk to, 

those people who are interested in lifting people out of poverty, to 

the corporations in my State which we have many, and all of the 

small businesses. 

This is probably one of the top issues. And so my question, I first 

want to start with Ms. Pletnick. You stated in your testimony that, 

‘‘Consistency in how ESSA is interpreted and regulated is critical. 

Uncertainty created by shifting interpretations of the ESSA law 

continues to be a concern.’’ 

Given that there is currently no regulatory scheme for ESSA interpretation, what position do you think that this puts States in developing and implementing their plans? 

Ms. PLETNICK. So I believe in whether we are talking at the Federal level, we are talking at the State level, again, it is important 

to have that consistent feedback because then, in turn, we can 

move on with the implementation of ESSA, and make certain that 

we are directing all our efforts to that implementation, and checking those outcomes. 

So it is critical as we move forward that we make certain that 

we know exactly what our targets are, that we can get to work, and 

get the work done. So my concern is really about consistency across 

the board at all levels. 

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Across the board. I want to follow that 

up and, Mr. Lovell, if you could also join in. What impact would 

the lack of regulation have on underserved populations? 

Mr. LOVELL. That is a monumentally important question. The 

concern is that the lack of the regulation will result in too few children being identified and then receiving the support that they need 

to succeed. We want to make sure that States, when they are proposing to identify students for additional support, that while we 

want to use all the indicators in the system to support them, we 

don’t want them to make—we want to make sure that kids don’t 

have to fail on everything before they are actually identified. 

I think that is a major concern considering that a few States 

have been very clear that they want to look at are kids performing 

on grade level, and if they are not, then let us do something about 

that. The Department has pushed back on that a little bit and that 

is very unfortunate because, frankly, if students are not performing 

at grade level, or if they are not graduating, I don’t need to know 

much else to know that something needs to happen. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

76 

I need to know a lot more to know what to do about it, but I 

don’t need to know a lot more to know that there is a problem. And 

then back to your, again, question around the regulations. 

That, you know, the role of the regulation is to provide a lot of 

clarification and there was a comment earlier around the 95 percent requirement and whether the regulation is being overly prescriptive. Four options were presented. 

One of those options in the regulation around the 95 percent was 

essentially States choose your own adventure. Come up with your 

own option. So to say that it was only four options is actually not 

entirely the case. 

And as a result, we have States when it comes to how are they 

going to be implementing this very important provision of the law, 

either not being clear about it or not doing it at all. 

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. You know, I really want to touch a little 

bit on both regulation and also on capacity. We were talking about 

undersecretaries and the positions not being filled. I had the opportunity in Delaware to serve as a deputy secretary of health and social services. 

And while I—I was also secretary of labor, and secretaries do 

have an important role. They are external. They are visionary and 

all of that. But a lot of the detail gets done at that undersecretary 

level. A lot of the administrative things, a lot of the—there is so 

much importance also to that level. 

And so my concern about filling positions is I share Ms. Davis’ 

concern. Also about regulations, I guess, having come from State 

government, I believe there is a place for regulations. Can we overregulate things? Yes. But there is a real place and I think what we 

are hearing from all of your testimony across the board is consistency, clarity—that helps people to be able to do their jobs better. 

It helps us to be able to get better outcomes. 

So I have no more questions. I am just going to yield the balance 

of my time. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much, Ms. Blunt Rochester. 

Mr. Grothman, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Thank you. I guess I will ask a question to either Dr. Pletnick or Dr. Wright, who is best able to answer it. 

Could you first of all just give us a general overview? I mean, we 

wanted to get around, we passed Student Success Act, get around 

this top-down approach to how you run your schools. Do you feel 

we have succeeded in that? Are you happy with that or would you 

like further things done alone those lines? We will start with Dr. 

Pletnick. 

Ms. PLETNICK. As I had shared earlier, I think there are still 

some things even at our State level that were legislation that was 

tied more closely to the No Child Left Behind era than to what currently is in place with ESSA law. 

So I think there is still room for improvement and we need to 

work on that. Teacher evaluation is an example of that, some other 

pieces. So, yes, ESSA has provided us with some of that autonomy 

and flexibility, but at the State level, I think we still have some 

things that we will need to do. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. Are you satisfied with what you are getting out of Washington, though? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

77 

Ms. PLETNICK. Yes. Again, I will tell you that we have submitted 

our plan. We have not gotten any feedback on that plan at this 

point. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. Same question for you, Dr. Wright. 

Ms. WRIGHT. Yeah, I think the State’s role, at least in Mississippi, is, you know, setting the long-term goals per subgroup 

area so that we know what we want for our children 10 years out. 

But I think it is really the local districts and the local schools that 

need to be developing their own respective plans on how they meet 

the needs of their individual children. 

I wouldn’t presume to know. I have got 144 districts, all the 

needs of that, so I trust my superintendents and the principals and 

the teachers of that school. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. You are satisfied with the Student Success Act, 

though? 

Ms. WRIGHT. Yes. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. And we say we were pushing things out. 

Ms. WRIGHT. Yes, I am, very much so. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. You were saying so. Okay. A little while ago, you 

kind of were talking very positively about kind of more preschool. 

Have you ever read anything indicating the preschool is not necessarily much of a benefit? 

Ms. WRIGHT. No, quite to the contrary. Preschool, there is too 

much research out there now for us to not be paying attention to 

our three- and four-year-olds. Quite honestly, we are going to be 

starting to look to how can we start helping children, you know, 

birth through grade three. I think that has been one of the things 

that we have been pushing out across our district is the amount 

of research that is being conducted recently and the long-term effects, even in Mississippi, that we can verify by research that has 

been done by Mississippi State on Mississippi children. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. You have never read anything to the contrary to that? Never read anything —— 

Ms. WRIGHT. Long time ago, but not within the past I would say 

5 years. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. Next question. One of the metrics that is 

supposed to show a quality school—well, I will go to this one. What 

is an underserved population? Mr. Lovell just used that as a 

phrase, but could anybody describe what you consider an underserved population? 

Mr. LOVELL. Well, the law stipulates that States are supposed to 

disaggregate data for accountability and reporting purposes for 

major racial and ethnic groups, for English learners, for low-income 

students, and for students with disabilities. So those are the categories of students that, generally speaking, when we speak to underserved populations that we are referring to. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Does underserved mean lack of money? Does it 

just mean poor outcomes? Is —— 

Mr. LOVELL. Well, it also refers really to both when you look at 

schools that predominantly serve those populations of students specifically —— 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Sometimes in Wisconsin, some of the most 

underperforming districts have the most money and that is why I 

wondered what you meant by underserved. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

78 

Mr. LOVELL. Well, so I think that we would present data that 

would suggest otherwise. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Nationwide or —— 

Mr. LOVELL. Oh, sure, across the country. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. Okay. Final question. Sometimes one metric used to measure a quality school district is graduation rates. I 

know graduation rates are overall up. On the other hand, a lot of 

times you hear from employers today, people who teach in secondary education that they feel the kids aren’t doing as well or as 

prepared as they used to be. Could you comment, say, Ms. Nowicki, 

on the contradiction there? Is it possible we are lowering the standards on what it takes to graduate? Or how can graduation rates be 

up, but employers and people in secondary education sometimes 

feel the kids graduating aren’t doing as well? 

Ms. NOWICKI. GAO has not done any recent work around graduation rates, so I can’t comment from that perspective. I know that 

the Department of Education’s IG has done some work looking at 

graduation rate statistics and what they mean and don’t mean in 

particular States. 

Mr. LOVELL. So our organization has looked at this, and actually, 

we are going to be releasing a report in the next few weeks because 

that contradiction definitely exists. And States in their ESSA plans 

have the opportunity to address this by including items in their accountability system that prioritize not just that you get a diploma, 

but that you get a diploma that really represents that you know 

something. 

And to your questions earlier around early childhood, while I 

haven’t seen anything that shows that early childhood is ineffective 

or isn’t necessary, I have read research that shows that early childhood on its own is insufficient. 

So in other words, you can’t—early childhood is not an inoculation. You have to continue to invest and support kids throughout 

their development. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Yeah, I would hope Dr. Wright would Google 

early childhood education and criticism and she will have no problem finding other things. Thanks much. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Grothman. 

Dr. Adams, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member 

Scott, for convening this hearing, and thank you to those of you 

who testified today. I want to reemphasize one of the main points 

that Mr. Lovell mentioned in his testimony that ESSA is, at heart, 

a civil rights law. 

The Federal Government has an important role to play in ensuring equity in education for our children. And while States have 

wide discretion and flexibility to determine how success is measured, the Federal Government sets the standard for success. 

So it is especially true in historically underprivileged groups. So 

Mr. Lovell, States have the discretion to create and define the metric used for consistent underperformers. In your analysis of State 

ESSA plans, how are States defining consistently underperforming, 

and do you think this equity guardrail in the law is being executed 

as intended to ensure schools struggling to meet the needs of underserved students are identified and supported to improve? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

79 

Mr. LOVELL. Thanks very much for your question. I think this is 

one of the most important provisions in the law. If we are not identifying kids who are continually underperforming, then what are 

we here for? And if we are not supporting them, then we are certainly not doing our jobs. 

A number of States have proposed ways to do this that ensure 

that if you are—if a student is not performing at grade level in 

math or reading, or if there are low graduation rates, those children are identified and something will happen as a result of it. 

They will receive some sort of support. 

Unfortunately, a number of States are also putting together 

these sort of indexes where you are including a whole bunch of different factors to determine whether a kid is low performing or not. 

And what we are concerned about is that if you are performing well 

in one area, that might mask if you are performing less well in another area. 

And so when you combine all these things together, you come up 

with not a whole lot that is actually usable. So we want to be sure 

that States have the flexibility to, as I believe it is being proposed 

in Mississippi, to look at if you are performing at grade level in 

math or reading. If you are not, then you should be able to receive 

targeted support. 

You don’t have to—you need to look at each indicator in the system, but you don’t have to fail on all of them in order to receive 

support. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you. 

Dr. Wright, you mentioned in your testimony that Mississippi is 

including students’ subgroup performance in identifying schools for 

support and improvement. And I know that your plan is only in 

draft form, but how is Mississippi planning to measure subgroup 

performance and factor subgroup performance into the school’s rating? 

Ms. WRIGHT. So we have the data that we collect on our statewide assessment that we have just redone grades three through 

eight and then, once again, in high school. Those data will be 

disaggregated by subgroup and then monitored at not only at the 

State level, but at the district level and at the school level. 

So we will be able to track that data over time to determine 

whether or not those subgroups of children are continuing to 

underperform or are making progress. 

Ms. ADAMS. Okay, thank you very much. 

Madam Chair, I yield back. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you. 

Mr. Garrett, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GARRETT. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

A wiser man than me said, probably 35 years ago, the nine most 

frightening words in the English language are, ‘‘I am from the government and I am here to help.’’ I might amend that to 10 words 

and submit that I am from the Federal Government and I am here 

to help, pretty frightening in their own right. 

ESEA is a 50-year-old precursor to ESSA and arose during the 

Johnson administration along with the war on poverty. And we 

have seen as Federal dollars spent on local education rose, a reCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

80 

verse correlation in the performance of United States students 

versus students across the globe. 

And candidly, from a State where we rank anywhere between 

fourth and sixth as it relates to educational outcomes of the 50 

States on a regular basis, I wonder why we are competing against 

49 other States as opposed to a world of other nations. Because 

that is the playing field upon which our children will ultimately 

compete. 

It is often said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions 

and I have seen all too often people attack aspirants to serve in political capacities based on what program they supported or didn’t 

support. If you don’t support this, you don’t care, or if you don’t 

support this, you don’t like children. If you don’t support this, you 

are not interested in finding solutions to poverty and expanding opportunity. It is all horse feathers. 

What we need to be focused on as opposed to intentions is outcomes, results, what happens. And I will tell you speaking with 

frustration that vents back to 6, 7 years ago, as I was serving in 

the State legislature, where we identify failing schools and leave 

students in these failing schools without an option for the parents 

who lack the socioeconomic and financial wherewithal to vote with 

their feet, we doom those children to inferior outcomes and inferior 

educational opportunity. 

If you ask me whether I believe in nature or nurture, I will tell 

you I believe in nurture every single time and that the color of a 

young person’s skin or the job of their parents isn’t so much a precursor on their success as to what they are exposed to. But we run 

into the institutional educational monopoly all the time as we try 

to create escape hatches for students in places, like the five, whopping five, schools that we had the courage to identify as failing in 

Virginia, to find a way out for these young people who have just 

as much fundamental entitlement to the single birthright of 

Americanship, and that is opportunity as every other kid. 

I am sick of watching kids fail based on their ZIP Code. But Jefferson said wisely, and I will paraphrase, the government closest 

to home is most effective, most accountable, and governs best. 

My colleague from Oregon states that she thinks the solution to 

our educational problems has to be at the Federal level. And then 

in the same paragraph lamented that ESSA prevented Oregon 

from including particular standards that she felt might help best 

effect good outcomes for students in Oregon. Dr. Pletnick, do smart 

people work with you? 

Ms. PLETNICK. I have very intelligent people working with me. 

Mr. GARRETT. And they are professional and trained people? 

Ms. PLETNICK. Yes, they are. 

Mr. GARRETT. And they care, they care about the children and 

the district that you serve? 

Ms. PLETNICK. They do. 

Mr. GARRETT. And you are the superintendent, correct? 

Ms. PLETNICK. I am. 

Mr. GARRETT. How many students does your district have? 

Ms. PLETNICK. Approximately 25,000. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

81 

Mr. GARRETT. And can you name one or two of those kids who 

might have special needs who you are trying to overcome the challenges yourself? 

Ms. PLETNICK. I could, but I will not confirm —— 

Mr. GARRETT. I am not asking you to, but you could. Yeah, right, 

but nobody in this room could, right? You could and you care, and 

you have smart people, and we don’t have a monopoly on good 

ideas. And you want what? What is best for the outcomes for the 

students that you serve, is that correct? 

Ms. PLETNICK. Absolutely. 

Mr. GARRETT. Okay. Ms. Nowicki, you are familiar with the 

United States student ranks versus their global peers as it relates 

to academic performance in ratings like math and science? Are you 

familiar with the historical data? 

Ms. NOWICKI. Not specifically. 

Mr. GARRETT. Okay. Are you familiar with how we were doing 

say in 1950, 1960, 1970 versus 1990, 2000, 2010 versus our global 

peers? 

Ms. NOWICKI. Are you talking about the PISA ratings? 

Mr. GARRETT. And surveys of outcomes educationally. I would 

submit by way of brevity, because I have a minute and 9 seconds, 

that as we have spent more, we have actually gone down versus 

the competition. Now, I am not arguing against spending more. Let 

me be clear. We need to spend money on education. But I got an 

idea that folks in a county in Arizona and the State of Mississippi 

know better what is needed. 

Dr. Wright, we talked about CTE. Is it good in CTE to align the 

training that we give students with the needs of the job providers 

in the communities? 

Ms. WRIGHT. Absolutely. 

Mr. GARRETT. Okay. And who knows better the needs of the job 

providers in Tupelo or Biloxi, the people in Tupelo or Biloxi, the 

people in Jackson, or the people in Washington, D.C.? 

Ms. WRIGHT. The people in Tupelo and Biloxi. 

Mr. GARRETT. Correct, thank you. I mean, I just am a little biased here. And so I guess what I am driving at here is that this 

is great and I think ESSA is a step in the right direction. It doesn’t 

have—like anything from Washington, it has warts and pimples, 

but you are good, smart people who give a damn, pardon me, about 

the outcomes for the children in your communities. And the way 

we arrive at the best solutions is by letting loose 50 laboratories 

for democracy and finding out what works. And our role, since we 

have already co-opted so much of the resources at the Federal level, 

should be to power those down to States and localities, would you 

agree, to let you all do what you think works best, and then let others fall in on the plans that succeed? Thank you. That is rhetorical. 

I am out of time. 

Chairwoman FOXX. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. GARRETT. Hey, I was only 12 seconds over, Madam Chair. 

That is a new record. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Mr. DeSaulnier, you are recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank 

you for having this hearing. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

82 

And, Mr. Lovell, I am always taken when I look at the achievement gap by a comment I heard by a Stanford researcher, Linda 

Darling, some years—well, it wasn’t that long ago, a few years ago, 

that if we had just continued to do what we knew is the right 

things to invest in 30 years ago for the past 30 years, we wouldn’t 

have an achievement gap. 

So when we look at the difficulties in people, whether they are 

in Mississippi or in Concord, California, where I am from, in 

achievement gap, could you talk to that a little bit about where accountability comes? That, yes, we want local jurisdictions to decide, 

but, on the other hand, there is a benefit to this research that applies across all 50 counties and the Federal Government affording 

that to local communities so they can be informed on what is happening around the country. And why it is important for consistency 

that there is some accountability there . 

Mr. LOVELL. Thank you very much for the question. I actually 

think that Chairwoman Foxx said it very well at the beginning of 

this hearing when saying that ESSA provides a balance between 

accountability and autonomy. And the reality is that everyone 

needs to have a role in this and there is a Federal role to be 

played. So ESSA is a civil rights law and what ESSA does is provide a broad framework for the accountability and ensures that 

those kids who have the least have a shot of success. 

So it also needs, I think, to be well understood that we have seen 

improvements in educational outcomes over the last decade. Look 

at the graduation rates as an example. Back in 2000, 2001, if you 

were going to draw a line between the graduation rate in 2000 and 

2007/8, basically you have got a straight line. 

But then in 2008, something happened. The U.S. Department of 

Education under President George W. Bush issued a regulation 

around graduation rate accountability because apples were not 

being compared to apples across States if you compared graduation 

rate calculations. One State was using one calculation, another 

State was using another. 

After the Federal Government issued the regulation in 2008, you 

saw something pretty remarkable happen. Graduation rates started increasing. As a result, since 2000, 2.8 million more kids have 

graduated. That is a big deal. It is a big deal for them and it is 

a big deal for the Nation’s economy considering that by 2020, twothirds of jobs are going to require at least some postsecondary education and a high school diploma is the first step to getting there. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. And the second part of my questions are coming from the Bay Area and I appreciate the fact that we had really 

robust field hearings that the chairwoman and the ranking member were part of, and I was lucky enough to be part of those. But 

particularly, as you will remember, Madam Chair, the last part of 

that field hearing at Stanford University, the Harvard of the West 

Coast, I might add, to the Ranking Member, I get this all the time 

in the Bay Area, is from tech people. 

We have our challenges on housing and transportation. But the 

thing that comes up all the time from employers is we need to provide a workforce for global economy that is changing at warp 

speed. So accountability is a big part in the business sector. And 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

83 

again, a lot of these companies will move. I don’t want them to 

move from the Bay Area, but they are. 

But one of the things that determines where they are moving are 

things like housing costs, but it is also the education system. So 

while it is important, I think, and I very much support local control 

and what Dr. Wright, you have said, there are things that in this 

economy require, I think, the Federal Government and the business community to inform us at a local level this is what we are 

looking for, and this is what we have to invest in. So I will let any 

of you respond to that. 

And I think the urgency to that is really the predominant thing 

for me is how do we maintain our preeminence in innovation in 

this country and I’ll say specifically for Northern California? The 

answer to that is investing in not just in education, but doing it 

smartly, but doing it in a way that is informed given how quickly 

the workforce is changing and the demands on that workforce. 

So Mr. Lovell, if you could start any of the other —— 

Mr. LOVELL. No, I would be happy to. You know, ESSA asserts 

that when there is low-performing schools or low-performing students something has to happen. It doesn’t prescribe what happens 

and there is the balance. The Federal Government ensures that we 

are taking care of our lowest-performing kids and leaves it to 

States and to districts and to schools and to my colleagues to my 

right and my left as to how to do that best. Because the Federal 

Government can’t do that, but what the Federal Government can 

do is ensure that we are all playing by the same rules. And I also 

say that we see a lot of really effective innovation taking place at 

the local level and pick on California in a positive way in this regard. 

CTE has come up on a number of occasions. And in California, 

through the Linked Learning Initiative there is a lot of really great 

work going on to integrate rigorous academics with CTE. And there 

is an important Federal role to play and this committee has played 

that role by reauthorizing the Carl Perkins Career and Technical 

Education Act. So there is a role for everyone to play, but I appreciate you raising this need to really acknowledge that the Federal 

role here is important. 

It doesn’t displace the local role, but it is two different roles. One 

is to ensure that our lowest-performing kids are being supported 

when they need it, and then the State and local role is to actually 

implement that. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Thank you, Mr. Lovell. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. DeSaulnier. 

Mr. Scott, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. Nowicki, did the GAO conduct a compliance review on plan 

components or policy decisions made by States, like Ohio or California, or did GAO make any value judgments concerning the plan 

development or did you just make an observation of those plans? 

Ms. NOWICKI. It was just an observation of those plans, sir. We 

did not make a compliance judgment. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. And we heard complaints from some representatives of civil rights groups that flexibility could result in an 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

84 

abuse of, really, equity compliance. Your plan didn’t comment on 

equity as I understand it. Did you contact representatives of parents, State-level advocates, advocates of children with disabilities, 

or civil rights groups? 

Ms. NOWICKI. Generally not for this work, sir. We were primarily 

engaged with national stakeholder groups who were working with 

States. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Lovell, the whole point of ESEA and ESSA is to eliminate 

achievement gaps providing equal educational opportunities. Can 

you, you have kind of gone around this, but can you show how subgroups so far have addressed equity? 

Mr. LOVELL. How States have addressed equity? 

Mr. SCOTT. Yeah, within terms of —— 

Mr. LOVELL. The separate accountability? Thank you for the 

question. So there is a spectrum, right? So you have got some 

States that, as I have said, are looking at are students performing 

at grade level? And if they are, let us do something about it. You 

have some States that will be looking at a whole bunch of different 

indicators. And as I have said, I fear that in doing that, what we 

will be doing is providing the chance for low achievement to be 

masked by higher achievement. 

So if you say—so actually to the conversation that was taking 

place earlier around graduation rates, you can have a high graduation rate, which means that kids are actually getting a diploma, 

but they may not be reading or doing math at grade level. Right? 

If you combine those two things together, then you are not getting 

the right read on what is happening in the school. 

Another thing that I fear is happening with regard to the role 

of subgroups in these plans is that when States have report cards, 

so if your school gets an A, B, C, D, F, they are not adequately incorporating the performance of each group within their grades. So 

you can have a high letter grade, but you can have low performance for historically underserved kids. 

Mr. SCOTT. And if you have a subgroup that is not doing well in 

the school system, what support do members of those subgroups 

get in schools that are otherwise doing well? 

Mr. LOVELL. Well, it is really up to the States, the districts, and 

the schools to determine that. The law stipulates that they are to 

receive evidence-based intervention, but the schools, the districts, 

and the States will determine what those interventions are. 

Mr. SCOTT. And, well, how is that a credible plan? Who decides 

whether there is a credible strategy to address achievement gaps? 

Mr. LOVELL. Well, that is a great question. The template that’s 

distributed by the Department of Education and the questions 

around school improvement, there really aren’t a lot of questions. 

And so what is really going to be happening is fairly unclear. 

Mr. SCOTT. Why is the 95 percent testing rule important? 

Mr. LOVELL. For a few reasons. One, we have to have accurate 

data. And two, we want to make sure that low-performing kids are 

not intentionally or unintentionally encouraged to not be present 

on test day. 

Mr. SCOTT. And what happens if you don’t get 95 percent tested? 

What happens to the data? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

85 

Mr. LOVELL. The data becomes unreliable. 

Mr. SCOTT. And, Dr. Wright, you indicated that your credentials 

are nationally recognized. What happened, what is wrong with credentials that are not nationally recognized? 

Ms. WRIGHT. There may be some CTE. I assume you are referring to the CTE programs. I think some of our local businesses, 

those CTE programs are going to be developed specifically for 

them, so they may not be a national credential. Having the CTE 

endorsement on the diploma is a student’s option. And so they can 

either go for the traditional diploma or to go for a CTE endorsement on their diploma. That is their option, but the local businesses may not have a national certification. But they will have a 

certification that will allow them to assume a job in the local business. 

Mr. SCOTT. But what is the value of the national certification? 

Ms. WRIGHT. They can go anywhere in the United States. I 

mean, I think that is the power of having national certification is 

that children are mobile and families are mobile. So this will allow 

them to really look around the Nation to see where their certification could earn them, say, the most money or where their family 

wants to move to. 

Mr. LOVELL. And if I could run an example of this really quickly? 

There is the National Academy Foundation. Students that participate in a NAF academy and they get the NAF track certification, 

they are graduating from high school with their diploma. They get 

the NAF track certification and 13 companies, and big companies 

like AT&T, Cisco, JP Morgan Chase, give those students preferential hiring treatment when they are done with postsecondary 

education. 

So there are ways that we can really incentivize integration of 

CTE in academics and make sure that when kids are graduating, 

they are graduating with something that will help them down the 

road. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much, Mr. Scott. 

It is now my turn to ask questions of the panels. Dr. Wright, you 

talk about how Mississippi’s State plan is related to the State 

board’s strategic plan in Mississippi. 

Ms. WRIGHT. Yes, ma’am. 

Chairwoman FOXX. And we hope that ESSA allows you the flexibility to integrate the plan you are developing under ESSA with 

the work the State is already doing. Do you and your department, 

the State board, and other stakeholders around the State see that 

integration as possible and desirable? Or is your ESSA work something that is happening separate from the other reform work going 

on in the State? 

Ms. WRIGHT. That is a great question. And we look at it as very 

much integrated. We feel very strongly that our State’s strategic 

plan is a strong one and we looked at ESSA as a way to strengthen 

that plan and refine that plan, and give us the opportunity to add 

other components that we may not have had in that. But that has 

been our message right from the very beginning. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Dr. Pletnick, could you respond to that same 

question in terms of what is happening in Arizona? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

86 

Ms. PLETNICK. As a matter of fact, there was an effort, again, to 

establish goals at our State level. And I had the privilege of serving 

on the long-term goal committee that established the goals as part 

of ESSA. And we were certain to align those goals to make certain 

that what the State had developed was also reflected in the State 

plan when the State forward—when the agency submitted those. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Great, thank you. 

Dr. Wright, we have heard criticisms which continue throughout 

the process for what became ESSA that States can’t be trusted to 

hold schools accountable and intervene in low-performing schools. 

And certainly Mr. Garrett touched on this in his comments. You 

talked about school improvement being an important element in 

the plan that Mississippi is developing. Obviously, this is something that States and districts must do and should do. 

But ESSA largely puts the actual strategies back in your hands. 

Could you tell us more about how your State and school districts 

are thinking about improving low-performing schools under ESSA? 

Ms. WRIGHT. Absolutely. As I mentioned earlier that is our goal 

6 of our strategic plan around ensuring that our districts and our 

schools are rated C or higher. I feel very strongly that everybody 

needs to be held accountable and that starts with me, my team, 

and I think we owe it to our parents to ensure that we are looking 

out for all children across the State regardless of ZIP Code, as 

someone mentioned earlier. 

We are putting together protocols for our low-performing schools 

to follow. And as I mentioned earlier, we have even got a totally 

different process that we are using about having them coming in 

and justify even their spending. And to ensure that they do have 

evidence-based interventions that they are spending their money 

on and not just interventions that do not have any evidence of 

working. And so that is going to be something that we are doing 

on an ongoing basis. 

I feel very strongly that the children of our State deserve nothing 

less than the best and we have to ensure, as a State, that we are 

monitoring that very closely because not only our children depend 

on it, but our parents depend on it, and they trust us to make sure 

that happens. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you. Another question, Dr. Wright. 

Ms. WRIGHT. Sure. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Dr. Pletnick has talked about how she applauds the planning approach in Arizona even though she doesn’t 

agree with everything in the plan. And you have talked about the 

stakeholders you have engaged with and how your State plan reflects the view of these stakeholders. And by the way, it is an impressive process that you have talked about. 

I am sure that not every stakeholder, though, agrees with everything that is in the draft plan so far. So how have you engaged 

with critics to at least ensure everyone has the opportunity to be 

heard? 

Ms. WRIGHT. I think it is really important that everybody’s voice 

is heard. I am a big believer in advocacy and I think that anybody 

that is in front of you that is advocating or advocating for a reason, 

and we have been very forthright about what we can and cannot 

do. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

87 

We went through a series of three different assessments in three 

different years. And that kind of drove my teachers and superintendents a little crazy. So I said we are going to hold tight on 

an accountability system at least for three straight years under the 

same assessment so that they did not feel I was continuing to 

change the target. 

So when we have got stakeholders coming in and saying, well, 

we would love to have a school climate survey embedded into our 

accountability system, I have said if you can just press pause, we 

are putting a taskforce together now at the end of our third year 

to take a look at our entire accountability system and say are there 

any unintended consequences or are there other things we can add. 

So we have acknowledged what they have wanted, but we have 

also tried to provide a reason why we either can or cannot include 

that in our plan. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Great. Thank you very much for that. I want 

to thank all of our witnesses for taking time to testify before the 

committee today and even though most of our members have left, 

I really appreciate members on both sides coming and asking good 

questions, sometimes pontificating, but participating in what is 

going on as everybody has indicated, we have an important subject 

here. 

I would now like to recognize Ranking Member Scott for his closing remarks. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, we have 

heard the necessity to get the Department of Education before us 

to respond to some of the concerns about inconsistencies in terms 

of responding to the State plans and other priorities by the Department, particularly in terms of the funding priorities. 

We have heard the real necessity for having many of the programs within ESSA actually funded because if we are asking them 

to get the job done, we have identified technical assistance to 

teachers, afterschool programs, and other things that can be very 

helpful. And if we don’t fund them, it just complicates their life. 

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act passed in 1965 

was designed as a civil rights law to guarantee equal educational 

opportunities. We have gone through many iterations. The last, of 

course, is ESSA. It has two major requirements. One is a requirement that localities assess to ascertain whether or not there are 

achievement gaps and where they find achievement gaps, having 

a meaningful strategy to eliminate those. 

Dr. Wright has indicated what a meaningful strategy may look 

like and I think it is significant that it wasn’t just one program and 

reaction. It is a long-term strategy that starts with early childhood 

education and following the students to ascertain whether or not 

the strategy is working and making sure that you actually address 

the achievement gap. 

There is flexibility in how to assess and in the strategy to eliminate the achievement gaps, but there is no real flexibility on the 

requirement that the assessment be done and that the accountability, doing something about it, is credible. And if a State fails 

to adequately explain how they are going to assess for achievement 

gaps or fails to outline a credible strategy to address those achieveCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

88 

ment gaps, it is the responsibility of the Department of Education 

to intervene. 

Madam Chair, we have letters from several organizations that I 

would like to submit for the record. They are letters from advocacy 

organizations and stakeholders about their engagement in ESSA 

approval so far. The letters are from the Advocacy Institute, the 

Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, NAACP Legal Defense 

and Education Fund, and the National Down Syndrome Congress. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Without objection. 

Mr. SCOTT. I yield back. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much, Mr. Scott. 

I have found this to be very, very interesting hearing today. And 

I think that a lot of what it boils down to is a subject we deal with 

a lot in this committee and that I talk about a fair amount, and 

that is the role of the Federal Government in education. 

I think it was very important that both Dr. Wright, Dr. Pletnick 

brought up the fact that ESSA is not your entire educational program in your States. I think that many times people tend to think 

that what the Federal Government is providing in terms of funding 

or what we are providing in terms of law is it, that is all you are 

doing. 

And I think we have done a disservice in many cases to the 

American people in many things that the Federal Government has 

done to make it appear as though the Federal Government is the 

savior. We have a big program and all of a sudden everybody 

thinks it is the answer. 

I think my own experiences as a member of a board of education 

tell me a lot about what Mr. Garrett was talking about. My experiences since then in visiting schools all over the country, we have 

a lot of wonderful teachers, principals, superintendents, custodians 

who want to provide a great educational experience for the students in their schools. 

And I think in many cases the Federal Government has a very 

limited role in that and that for us to always look to the Federal 

Government to solve every problem that exists out there is a mistake. And we have to understand the limitations, I think, that we 

have. 

I think ESSA was a big step forward in giving the flexibility that 

the locals and the States need to be able to provide that education. 

My colleague said what we should be about is providing equal educational opportunities and I certainly believe that. 

I believe that education is the answer to so many things that so 

many challenges facing people in this country from getting out of 

poverty, to finding meaningful work, to having a successful life. So 

I want those opportunities. 

But I think too many times what we say to the American people 

is that we can have equality in outcomes. And having taught for 

15 years I know that just isn’t going to happen. 

I was shocked. When I taught I said to my students everybody 

in here can make an A and I really meant that. And I gave unlimited opportunities to students to do that. But I had a Bell-shaped 

curve every semester and I was truly shocked by that because I 

didn’t believe—I thought everybody would take every opportunity 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

89 

to make the best grade that he or she could make and it didn’t 

happen. 

So I believe in equal educational opportunities, but I don’t think 

we are going to have equal results. And I think we have to temper 

what we do, but we have to trust people at the local level. And I 

appreciate very much those people who are out there every day 

teaching, committing themselves to helping students. And for those 

of you who are administrators, bless you for what you do. Particularly bless you if you listen to your teachers, you listen to your parents, and you listen to the stakeholders. 

The other thing that we hear a lot about, and I am really glad 

Mr. DeSaulnier brought this up because it is true again on both 

sides of the aisle, in most cases we think of education as preparation for the workforce. We don’t have many people who can go 

through an educational system and then not do anything to provide 

for themselves. And we are all hearing about this. And so I think 

emphasis on what we are doing out there, whether people end at 

the secondary level and don’t go on for any other formal education, 

they are going to get educated whether it is a formal process is 

really important. 

But I think we are moving in the right direction with ESSA and 

I am, again, particularly glad to hear our two administrative people 

talk about how this is one piece of the answer, not all of it because 

I think we have to understand the proper role of the Federal Government. 

So thank you all very much. There being no further business, the 

committee stands adjourned. 

[Additional submission by Mr. Lovell follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

90 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 12 here 26227.012
91 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 13 here 26227.013
92 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 14 here 26227.014
93 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 15 here 26227.015
94 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 16 here 26227.016
95 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 17 here 26227.017
96 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 18 here 26227.018
97 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 19 here 26227.019
98 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 20 here 26227.020
99 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 21 here 26227.021
100 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 22 here 26227.022
101 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 23 here 26227.023
102 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 24 here 26227.024
103 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 25 here 26227.025
104 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 26 here 26227.026
105 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 27 here 26227.027
106 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 28 here 26227.028
107 

[Additional submissions by Mr. Scott follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

108 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 55 here 26227.055
109 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 56 here 26227.056
110 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 57 here 26227.057
111 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 58 here 26227.058
112 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 59 here 26227.059
113 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 60 here 26227.060
114 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 61 here 26227.061
115 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 62 here 26227.062
116 

[Whereupon, at 12:32 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 63 here 26227.063