1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

+ + + + + STAKEHOLDERS FORUM: Informing ED's Response to the Presidential Memorandum on "Administrative Flexibility, Lower Costs, and Better Results for State, Local, and Tribal Governments"

+ + + + + THURSDAY, JULY 14, 2011

+ + + + + The Stakeholders Forum was held in the U.S. Department of Education, Barnard Auditorium, at 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C., at 2:30 p.m., Massie Ritsch, Deputy Assistant Secretary, presiding. PRESENT: MASSIE RITSCH, Deputy Assistant Secretary, External Affairs and Outreach DENISE FORTE, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development ELIZABETH MCFADDEN, Deputy General Counsel MELODY MUSGROVE, Director, Office of Special Education Programs ROSS SANTY, Director, Performance InformationManagement Service AJITA TALWALKER, Office of the Undersecretary JOHAN UVIN, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Vocational and Adult Education MICHAEL YUDIN, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Welcome and Opening Comments, Massie Ritsch 3 Overview of theAdministration's Flexibility Agenda, Denise Forte 5 Comment Session 15 Adjourn 483
P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1 2:35 p.m. 2 MR. RITSCH: Welcome to the 3 Department of Education on a beautiful day 4 here in Washington. Today is Bastille Day, 5 July 14th, and in the spirit of that French 6 holiday which was about independence we'll 7 be talking about flexibility today in the 8 form of independence here thatwe're seeking 9 your input on. 10 I want to welcome folks here in 11 the audience. I'm Massie Ritsch, head of 12
our outreach operation here at the 13 Department, and I want to welcome our 14 viewers on USTREAM who are tuning in from 15 who-knows-where to join us for today's 16 forum. 17 The purpose today is to talk 18 about the President's administrative 19 flexibility agenda. As part of that, what 20 we're hoping to get from you is a better 21
sense of how we at the Department of 22 Education can increase flexibility and 234
reduce both the burden and the overall cost 1 for education stakeholders in implementing 2 programs and reforms, always of course with 3 the goal of improving academic results for 4 children. 5 As you likely know, in February, 6 President Obama issued a formal memorandum 7 that required federal agencies to report to 8 OMB the actions taken and plans put forward 9 to offer greater flexibility for federal 10 programs that are operated by state, local, 11 and tribal governments. 12 And to implement the directive in 13 that memorandum, we've been working to 14 identify administrative, regulatory, and 15 legislative barriers that currently prevent 16 states, localities, and tribes from best 17 achieving their program goals and 18 objectives. 19 One of the steps we've taken was 20 formallypublishing our own Federal Register 21 notice on July 6th, specifically requesting 22 input from the field on how to reduce 235 regulatory and administrative burden and 1 furthermore, we wanted an opportunity for a 2
more face-to-face exchange which is why 3 we've asked you to come here today. 4 So here is how today will work. 5 My colleague, Denise Forte, DeputyAssistant 6 Secretary in the Office of Planning, 7 Evaluation, and Policy Development, will 8 give us an overview of the administration's 9 flexibility agenda. We'll then rearrange 10 the furniture a little bit, to accommodate 11 bringing upmore colleagues to the stage and 12 into the conversation. We'll introduce 13 those folks to you and then get into taking 14 your comments and input today. 15 So with that I will bring Denise 16 up. 17 Denise? 18 MS. FORTE: Good afternoon, 19 everyone. Thanks for joining us this 20 afternoon. Iwant to thank Massie for 21 making me a little bit more French and 22 Denise Forte -- my name is Denise Forte, 236
that's okay.It's Bastille Day.But thanks 1 for coming over and joining us. 2 Massie laid out for you our 3 interest here today,but letme speak to you 4
a littlebitmore aboutwhat is driving most 5 of this. Earlier this year, the President 6 issued a memorandum on administrative 7 flexibility, lower costs, andbetter results 8 for state, local, and tribal governments, 9 which is really a technical way of saying 10 that we want to get out of the way. This 11 memorandum launched a coordinated and 12 government-wide effort to provide increased 13 flexibility, reduce unnecessaryburdens, and 14 it is all about improving outcomes and 15 reducing costs. 16 And it builds on an earlier 17 initiative that the President had under an 18 Executive Order which was released in 19 January of this year entitled, "Improving 20 Regulation and Regulatory Review" which 21 calls for an analysis of agency regulations 22 including a retrospective analysis in order 237
to simplify redundant, inconsistent, or 1 overlapping requirements. 2 So what was this really? It gave 3
us directions
-- directions from the 4 President to the agencies and it was very 5 clear. The President said to us that he 6 wanted us to focus on accountability, on 7 outcomes, rather than processes. He wanted 8 to empower state and local and tribal 9 governments to bring forward their visions 10 and solutions for how public funds can be 11
used more cost effectively to accomplish 12 better results, and you all are already 13 trying to do more with less. We want to be 14 able to complement that work, and by 15 complement, with an “E,” the hard work that 16 you are already doing. 17 We want to avoid a one
-size
-fits
18 all approach and, if necessary, offer 19 flexibility on a conditional or experimental 20 basis, if that's where the states are. And 21
we also wanted to identify areas where 22
cross-agency collaboration would further 238
reduce administrative and regulatory 1 barriers while improving outcomes. 2 So we have been very enthusiastic 3 about this effort. In fact, we have a 4 Department-wide ethic: flexibility must 5 deliver outcomes, and we've been looking at 6 how we can move away from solely being 7 viewed as a monitoring agency that checks 8 the boxes; instead of looking at whether a 9 state, school, or district has met a 10 requirement, to one where we can be more 11 focused onwhether the desired outcomes have 12 been achieved. 13 And then earlier this year, we 14 issued a primer to governors on the 15 flexibilities that already exist. We've 16 identified some additional areas that we 17 think can haveverybroad implications for a 18 wide set of stakeholders. This would 19 include interagency collaboration for issues 20 such as early learning, workforce 21 development, and place-based initiatives 22 such as Promise Neighborhoods. These are 239
all areas where we can work with other 1 agencies such as HHS, DOL, or HUD, the 2 Department of Justice, and others, to 3 streamline our applications, consolidate 4 grants, and reduce regulations so that 5 programs are more effective on the ground. 6 We also think that data certainly 7 provides us another tool in our flexibility 8 toolkit. This is more than just about 9 building systems and collecting data 10 elements,butwe ourselveswant to support a 11 culture that uses information for decision 12 making to create systems of continuous 13 improvement. And we know that better 14 information is needed for decisions at all 15 levels of the education system. 16 And we've identified maintenance 17 of effort as a key part of this, because we 18 do believe that providing a better and more 19 transparent system for how states are 20 demonstrating that they have maintained 21 state spending in education is something 22 that has been called for. 2310 Lastly, we have established a 1 requirement task force here at the 2 Department and that's chaired by the Office 3 of the Deputy Secretary, Office of the 4 General Counsel, Office of the 5 Undersecretary, and the Office of Planning, 6 Evaluation, and Policy Development, that 7 will work with our different program 8 officers and with our stakeholders to look 9 at all of these areas to see where we can 10 create greater flexibility and reduce some 11 burden. 12 We do have deliverables. We want 13 with you, with your input, to identify some 14 high
-impact areaswherewe think thatwe can 15 have some broad implications for the widest 16 set of stakeholders. We'll then be 17 establishing some preliminary plans and 18 actions,both short- and long-term on howwe 19
can achieve those areas, keeping in mind 20 that we're always going to be focused on 21 outcomes, and then a report to the Office of 22 Office of Management and Budget by the end 2311 of August. 1 I did want to share with you some 2 of our outreach efforts. This is one of 3 them. We've also been attending 4 conferences. We'll be attending an NCES 5 Conference and doing some outreach there, as 6 well as the OSEP Megaconference in early 7 August to talk to some of our special 8 educators. We also have a couple of 9 opportunities for you to give your input 10 outside of this venue through the Federal 11 Register process, at www.regulations.gov, 12 and then we've also set up an email address 13 for ESEA comments at eseacomments@ed.gov. 14 Also, I wanted to share with you 15 where you might be able to find the 16 Executive Order and the Presidential 17 Memorandum in case you have some additional 18 questions on exactly what we're looking at. 19 There’s also the Federal Register notice 20 thatwill also direct you to ourpreliminary 21 plan and retrospective analysis of the 22 regulations that we've identified that we 2312 would like to take a look at. 1 Today, we have some heavy hitters 2 that are going to be joining me up on stage 3 and will participate as part of our 4 listening panel. Among them, Elizabeth 5 McFadden,who is our Deputy General Counsel, 6
one of our Deputy General Counsels; Melody 7 Musgrove, the Director over at OSEP; Ross 8 Santy, who is our Director for PIMS which 9 has primary responsibility for EdFACTS; 10 Johan Uvin, who is our Deputy Assistant 11 Secretary in the Office of Vocational and 12 Adult Education; Michael Yudin, who is our 13 Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Office of 14 Elementary and Secretary Education; and 15 Ajita Talwalker, who is joining us from the 16 Office of the Undersecretary. 17 And I wanted to run through with 18 you some of the questions that we've been 19 thinking about here, but where we 20 particularly need your input. 21 Unfortunately, I can't leave these up,but I 22 think these will help to frame some of the 2313 conversation aswe open it up for questions. 1 One -– these are some very overarching 2 questions I think
-- but certainly get to 3
some of the ideas that we're looking for: 4 What administrative regulatory and statutory 5 requirements can be changed to reduce costs 6 and unnecessary burdens? 7 What type of regulatory 8 requirements should the Department consider 9 waiving, subject of course, to the statutory 10 waiver authority? 11 Should the Department be 12 streamlining applications in the approval 13 process for waivers, and if so, how? 14 Where could the Department reduce 15 current reporting requirements that are not 16 necessary? 17 And where are there opportunities 18 to consolidate or streamline data collection 19 or submission requirements? 20 How can the Department streamline 21
or modify procedures that we use for 22 processing requests for waivers, MOE 2314 requirements, and how to make them more 1 transparent and uniform? 2 And then the last three: What 3
are some of the cross-agency flexibilities 4
or alignment that we need so that we can 5 improve on early learning, workforce and 6 place-based efforts? 7 What kind of flexibility can the 8 Department offer itself to help facilitate 9
some of the collaboration at and across 10 state, local, and tribal governments? 11 And then where can we increase 12 flexibility to drive the most improvements 13 in program and student outcomes? 14 So we do need your help. We want 15 your input. We hope that next hour or so 16 will give you an opportunity to bring 17 forward some ideas that you have. We're 18 going to roll up the screen, move a table on 19 stage and I'm going to ask my colleagues to 20
come join me, and then Massie is going to 21 start asking for questions. So we do 22 appreciate your time today and look forward 2315 to hearing your comments. 1 MR. RITSCH: Merci, Madam Forte. 2 So folks, we do have microphones, as we 3 usually do, here and here. And we invite 4 you to come up and make comments, offer 5 input. We don't -- since we're looking for 6 your input
-- we don't necessarily have 7 answers, so questions aren't necessarily 8 going to be met with answers. But whatever 9 you bring to the mic, I ask that you speak 10 directly into itbecausewe are transcribing 11 this session and we are, as I said earlier, 12 webcasting it on our USTREAM channel. It's 13 always helpful if you identify yourself.If 14 you have an unusually spelled name, you 15 might want to spell that for us, too. And 16 let us know what organization you're with 17 and who you're representing today. 18 Following the forum, we will, of 19 course, post the transcript and we'll have 20 the video available on our website, likely 21 early next week. 22 So as we are decorating the stage 2316
for our panel, why don't we bring the panel 1 up to join us? 2 Denise previewed the group 3 before. Have a seat, everybody, wherever 4 youwant, so that I then can let people know 5 who you are. 6 Starting with Denise down on the 7 end from our Policy Office, and then Melody 8 Musgrove, who is the Director of the Office 9 of Special Education Programs; Elizabeth 10 McFadden, Deputy General Counsel; Ajita 11 Talwalker, Special Assistant in the Office 12 of the Undersecretary; Ross Santy, Director 13 of the Performance Information Management 14 Service; Michael Yudin, also Deputy 15 Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 16 Secondary Education; and Johan Uvin, from th 17 Office of Vocational andAdult Education. 18 Do we have enough chairs for 19 everybody? Okay. 20 So please, join us by coming to 21 themicrophone on this side or this side and 22 offer your thoughts.Becausewe are looking 2317
for input on awide range of topics, all the 1 programs and policies we have, this will 2 probably be a wide
-ranging discussion that 3 is likely to jump around a bit. So we'll 4 try and bring some focus to it as possible, 5 and group like things together, if we can. 6 But would anyone like to kick us 7 off? Rich would. Iwas going to call on 8 you, if you didn't. Is that microphone 9 working over there? It is. 10 MR. LONG: First off, I'd like to 11 point out that there's not public parking 12 forbicycles at the Department.That should 13 be taken care of. 14 MR. RITSCH: Noted. 15 MR. LONG: For those of us who 16
are young at heart. My name is Richard 17 Long. I'm with the National Title I 18 Association. We did a set of work with the 19 State Directors of Special Education, andwe 20 found a number of things that were 21 befuddling in federal regulations which I 22 know is shocking to everybody.But we found 2318 repeatedly that there were terms and ideas 1 thatwere inboth Title I and IDEA requiring 2 collection of data, where the terms were 3 exactly alike and frequently the definitions 4
were quite different, either the definitions 5 of the words themselves, the concepts 6 themselves, or the time period that state 7 and local people would have to collect two 8 sets of data, essentially, for the same idea 9 which, of course, is not efficient. 10 The issue also gets to another 11 level of absurdity. We're finding that the 12 requirements of the Department to become a 13 data-driven organization and encourage the 14 whole society to become that way is 15 resulting in the states and locals having to 16 fire programmatic people, content people, 17 and hire data people. And that's counter18 intuitive, counter
-productive as well. 19 And then we also have found over 20 time that the Department is collecting data 21 that it itself doesn't have the ability to 22 process. And that's something that I think 2319
you ought to take a look at because that 1 would be one level of asking the question: 2 what's the utility of what we're doing? 3 So if you don't have the ability 4 to process the data, you shouldn't be 5 requiring that data to be collected. And 6 when I say you, I also actually mean all of 7
us because those of us in the audience who 8 have asked Congress to ask you to collect 9 data, we caused part of that problem. 10 Congress asked you to collect data. They 11 causedpart of thatproblem.And of course, 12 you asked for data to be collected as well. 13 That's just one slice of an area 14 where I think that you can be cutting down 15
on the burden and also improving on the 16 value. Thank you. 17 MR. RITSCH: And Rich, to your 18 first point, the terms that might be alike, 19 but definitionally different, are there any 20 specific examples you wanted to cite or 21 could the association send those along? 22 MR. LONG: We actually produced a 2320
paper that has several recommendations in 1 there related tomaintenance of effort.You 2
can also get to things like graduation rates 3 where there are some policy issues there. 4 It's just not that the data is different, 5 but there's also, if you look at many of the 6 requirements across both of these areas and 7
we believe we have, about two and a half 8 million kids we share in both areas where 9 the timelines are different, but sometimes 10 the datapoint is actually the same, but you 11 can't use the same data point twice because 12 the timelines are different. And that lack 13 of congruence is expensive and discerning. 14 MR. RITSCH: And is there 15 particular data thatwe collect that you say 16 we're not able toprocess that you wanted to 17

-- 18 MR. LONG: Yes, I was doing a 19 paper last year on ELL and we knew that you 20 had the data on not just the number of kids, 21 but some of the qualitative issues involved 22 there and that it's very expensive to 2321 produce. And when we called to the 1 Departmentbecausewe thought “oh good, this 2 will be very helpful on our planning,” and 3
we found that the Department didn't have the 4
resources to process the data. And so that 5
was done by chance, so that was either an 6 idiosyncratic moment. More likely, it's 7 indicative of other issues. 8 I don't believe that you would 9 say at the end of every data collection 10 requirement: are we able to process this 11 data? But I think that should be part of 12 your management review. 13 MR. RITSCH: Okay, thank you. 14 Thank you for acknowledging that sometimes 15 the thingswe require of you have been asked 16 by others, including associations and 17 Congress. 18 Michael? 19 MR. YUDIN: Yes, I just wanted to 20 note and I think you know this, the 21 Secretarymetwithmembers of the disability 22 community, advocacy community, a number of 2322

weeks ago. And he has, in fact, charged 1 OESE, in working with OSERS and OPEPD, to 2
convene aworking group to look at the types 3 of issues that you're talking about.How do 4
we better align our data collection, the 5 definitions, our performance reporting and 6 monitoring.Itmakes absolute sense to do a 7 much, much better job of aligning these two 8 programs in particular, IDEA and ESEA. So 9 we've already begun that work, so thank you. 10 MR. RITSCH: Thank you, Rich. 11 Others? 12 Jim, Laura, come on up. 13 MS. KALOI: Iam Laura Kaloi. 14 I'm the public policy director with the 15 National Center for Learning Disabilities 16 and I did comeprepared to say a few things, 17 but in light ofwhat Rich said, I think it's 18 really important to just build on that and 19 point out that in light of your priority to 20 increase alignment in K to 12 and focus on 21 improving student outcomes, we actually 22 appreciate the work that's been by OSEP to 2323 review the guidance generated by the 1 Department regarding the state performance 2 plan and annual performance reports, and we 3 think this is a really good step forward and 4 should be a major priority, and that that 5 momentum shouldn't be lost. 6 The process you used to determine 7 adequate implementation of IDEA is really 8 important and current guidance submits 9 consideration of performance indicators such 10
as graduation rate, dropout rate, and 11 proficiency on state assessments in making 12 both the SEA and the LEA determinations 13 under the Department of Ed's requirements. 14 So in addition we think it could 15 be argued that existing indicators contain 16 process-focused redundancies that could be 17 streamlined. 18 We think if you really wanted to 19 make changes to guidance that will improve 20 outcomes for students, the current guidance 21 could be closely examined, particularly its 22 alignment to Congressional intent so that 2324
we're looking at outcomes and not somuch at 1 process. 2 So that's one of the specific 3 things that I wanted to point out today. 4 Andwewillbemakingmore extensivewritten 5 comments,but I also came to explicitly talk 6 to you about intent regarding a review of 7 the regulations for the Individuals With 8 Disabilities Education Act and urge you to 9 exercise some caution. We know it took at 10 least two years in the last three 11 authorizations of IDEA to generate those 12 regulations, the guidance that followed, and 13 the proposed regulations. We're concerned 14 that because the reauthorization of IDEA is 15 meant to happen after the Elementary and 16 Secondary Education Act reauthorization, 17 that it might be premature to review the 18 IDEA regulations. 19 If you decide to proceed, we want 20 to make sure that you closely think about 21 the civil rights aspect of IDEA, that it is 22 also blended with a grant program to states 2325
and that you take particular care when 1 weighing the significance of burden 2 expressed by the states, because those who 3 possess rights under IDEA, the children who 4 have disabilities and their parents, they 5 need equal if not greater consideration in 6 the context of any proposed changes. 7 And so we want you to think about 8 the Congressional reauthorization in 2004 9 and how it sought to address some of these 10 burdens through our Paperwork Reduction Act 11 and the pilots that were put forward, and 12 that no states stepped forward to actually 13 conduct those pilots. 14 And so we think perhaps that the 15 burden wasn't as severe as was expressed 16
seven years ago. So we just offer that for 17 thought and we'll provide more extensive 18 comments as appropriate. Thank you. 19 MR. RITSCH: Thanks.Melody? 20 MS. MUSGROVE: Sure. First, I'd 21 like to speak to the SPPAPR, the State 22 Performance Plan Annual Performance Report, 2326
work that's being done. Thank you for your 1 involvement and we convened a great 2 stakeholder group to look at those 3 requirements, to look at the indicators and 4 to determine if there are ways that we can 5 be more efficient with our data that can 6 make the process more meaningful. 7 And so we look forward to acting 8
on those recommendations from that group and 9
we absolutely are committed to continuing 10 that work. So thank you for that. I 11 appreciate your input on that. 12 MR. RITSCH: Thanks, Laura. Jim? 13 MR. KOHLMOOS: Bon jour. Well, 14 it is Bastille Day and we should celebrate 15 the defeat of the French women a couple of 16 days ago. 17 (Laughter.) 18 My name is Jim Kohlmoos and I'm 19 from Knowledge Alliance. And the 20 difficulty, the difficult position that 21 you're in, is challengingbecause on the one 22 hand you want to promote flexibility in the 2327
focus on results, not just on compliance. 1 And on the other side of the coin, you have 2 to balance that with how to ensure the 3 taxpayer money is being used properly. 4 And one very small issue or 5
seemingly small issue that probably you 6 don't want to bother with, but I would like 7 to raise, is in this regard: that for a lot 8 of contracts and programs that require 9 convening of people, particularly state and 10 local education folks, there are serious 11 prohibitions against feeding them when they 12
come to meetings. And that may sound 13 ridiculous, but in order for meetings to 14 happen and to flow and what have you, it 15 would be really nice to lift some of those 16 restrictions on food. And I'm sure there 17
are many other kind of detailed points like 18 that that require a super amount of micro 19 managing of activities that are legitimate 20 and important to the overall mission of the 21 Department. So I would just like to put 22 that on the table. 2328
MR. RITSCH: Have you availed 1 yourself of our complementary water? 2 MR. KOHLMOOS: Thank you very 3 much. 4 (Laughter.) 5 MR. RITSCH: Are there any menus 6 youwanted to suggest? No, we hear you. We 7 encounter that, of course, in our own 8 programs that we put on here. It can be 9 difficult to do the kinds of things you want 10 to do and use full days when you can't offer 11 that to people. 12 Does anyone want to say anything 13 about that?Thank you, Jim. Nothing is too 14 small here to suggest after all. We're 15 looking for low-hanging fruit as well as 16 things that are harder to get at. 17 Yes, sir. 18 MR. SLOVENIC: I'm Joe Slovenic. 19 I recently completed the Georgetown 20 University Workforce Investment Act Program 21 and I had emailed you that I wanted to 22 follow up on the talkwithArne Duncan about 2329
that issue on January 24th, and also a talk 1 that we had at a function with Danny Davis 2 where Arne Duncan and Gerri Fiala were on 3 February 28th. 4 I'm looking for cooperation 5 between Arne Duncan, Hilda Solis in talking 6 to Georgetown on follow-up on my program. 7 Unfortunately, it has not gone well. I 8 think the President needs to pay some 9 attention about workforce development, about 10 the relationshipbetween Hilda Solis and the 11 D.C. Department of Employment Services. 12 Several universities have either quit using 13 the program or asked to stop using the 14 Workforce Investment Act Program. 15 Georgetown, after I left there in 16 February 2011, and George Washington 17 University,where I tried to enroll in 2010, 18 face a lot of obstacles from the DOES. The 19
same thing happened at Strayer when I tried 20 to enroll there in April 2010. DOES 21 processed me a day late. Howard, Potomac, 22 they all dropped out of WIA. 2330
Now in regards to flexibility 1 about improving the outcomes, I'm going to 2 concentrate onwhat the President said about 3 improving the outcomes. Ithink there's a 4 conflict between some stinginess I found 5 from D.C. Department of Employment Services 6 because they wouldn't allow me to start a 7 program until I ran out of 99 weeks of 8 unemployment insurance and I've only got 9 about $200 in the bank. In January, I only 10 earned $17. I've had no income since 11 January. 12 D.C. Department of Employment 13 Services is very stubborn about not wanting 14 to give me money for dry cleaning, my own 15 personal expenses, for this job search. I 16 haven't gotten an offer yet.They would not 17 talk to Georgetown's Financial Aid Office 18 about paying my expenses. And they've also 19 ignored my request to get a paid on-the-job 20 program from D.C. since March of 2011 with 21 my desperate financial circumstances. So 22 there's kind of a bad program outcome. I 2331 did not receive a job placement and I think 1 D.C. is a detriment tomy long-term goals. 2 I was a little more prepared in 3 what I was going to say. Ihad wanted to 4 emphasize to you because Georgetown was not 5 too receptive to a dialoguewhich Iproposed 6 and it's kind of unfortunately your decision 7 what to do,which I think could be good, but 8
we need to have politeness to the faculty 9 who taught me. Professor Larry Joseph, 10 Professor CharlesMcClelland, Professor Jeff 11 Stempien, they're very distinguished and 12 have many years of experience in government 13 agencies,both in civilian and labor-related 14 areas, housing, Defense Department work, 15 Energy Department work with Larry Joseph. 16 And I give them all A to A-minus ratings. 17 So I do want to have them respected. 18 I think with Larry Joseph, he 19 said that his son played basketball with 20 Arne Duncan at the University of Chicago, 21 and Larry Joseph was considering teaching 22 project management at the University of 2332 Chicago. Now I think President Obama would 1 say, “Well, there is an opportunity. Larry 2 Joseph may want to teach there.” I'm 3 willing to positively recommend to Governor 4 Pat Quinn and I thinkMr. Ridley, to explore 5 talks with Larry about economic development 6 if
-- 7 MR. RITSCH: Maybe we're getting 8
a little bit off the topic here of 9 flexibility.If I can extrapolate from your 10 earlier comments and I want to make sure 11 that maybe afterward we can follow up with 12 youpersonally aswe did in January when you 13
came, and we connected you with Johan's 14 office in the Office ofVocational andAdult 15 Education. 16 It sounds like maybe you are 17 suggesting that in some of the job training 18 programs that you sought to be part of that 19 there were certain restrictions that you 20 would have considered yourself a natural 21
candidate to enroll in those programs, but 22 there were certain burdens or certain 2333 requirements that you didn't quite yet meet. 1 MR. SLOVENIC: Yes. 2 MR. RITSCH: That prevented you 3 from taking advantage of those services. 4 MR. SLOVENIC: No. Iwould just 5 say there was a total -- going AWOL -- a 6 total abandonment of the goals thatArne and 7 I tried to set on January 24th
.Gerri Fiala 8 would not respond to an email I sent her in 9 March. She did not talk to Georgetown. I 10 spent a fewminuteswith Linda Greenan and - 11

- 12 MR. RITSCH: This would not be a 13 place to air those particular personal 14 disagreements that you have.But if I could 15 ask Johan, and I'd be happy also to talk 16 with you afterward about your particular 17 situation and see if we can get a better 18
sense of how we can help at the Department. 19 MR. SLOVENIC: Okay, because 20 there's a danger of my bankruptcy within a 21 month.Imay try to go to the University of 22 Phoenix
-- 2334
MR. RITSCH: I understand. 1 MR. SLOVENIC: Ido need to talk 2 to Stephanie Kunis about -- 3 MR. RITSCH: Let's talk 4 afterwards, all right. We need to move on 5 to some of our other commentators to stay 6 focused on our topic today which is 7 flexibility and where we can bring it about. 8 MR. SLOVENIC: I tried Georgetown 9 Human Resources also, but I don't feel that 10 you shouldblame it on Georgetown.I worked 11 for the Obama campaign in 2008 and they 12 should have gotten involved in the training 13 also. Thank you. 14 MR. RITSCH: Thank you. Hello, 15 Rob. 16 MR. MAHAFFEY: Hello, Massie. I 17 don't speak French. My name is Robert 18 Mahaffey. I'm with the Rural School and 19 Community Trust. Thank you for hosting this 20 briefing, as always. 21 We had a briefing on the Senate 22 side with regard to Senate 946 and I know 2335 you're not going to comment on any pending 1 piece of legislation, but the bill would 2 establish an Office of Rural Education 3 Policy here at the Department that would be 4 part of the Office of the Assistant 5 Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Ed. 6 And at the heart of the bill
-- 7 and it has 18 Senate co-sponsors now, with 8 the original sponsors being Senator Baucus 9 and Senator Rockefeller -- the heart of the 10 bill is at flexibility when it comes to 11 rural schools and research and looking at 12 how the Department can have an independent 13
arm that'smodeled after the Office of Rural 14 Health Policy at HHS which has had a 15 successful track record for 25 years. 16 The Department has not issued a 17 statement either for or against the bill. 18 They've been very, very helpful with regard 19 to the technical review, and the staff that 20 we've been working across the Senate have 21 been very appreciative of that. And the 22 Secretary's efforts around rural outreach, 2336
rural engagement, his commitment to rural 1 schools is greatly appreciated by the Rural 2 School and Community Trust as well. 3 However, those efforts really are 4 engaged in outreach, communication, 5 partnership building, all very, very 6 important. They do not focus on research 7 that is authentic and valid, that can be 8 used to support the programs of the 9 Department like Investing in Innovation, 10 like Race to the Top, like all these other 11 efforts. 12 So my question is really more of 13
a comment, and as you're going through this 14 process internally, we would hope that you 15 would look at particular populations. As 16 difficult and as complex as they may be to 17 define, but with regard to rural children 18 and rural schools and all the other 19 attendant federal policies that impact them 20 like the reauthorization of the Rural 21 Education Advancement Program, like the 22 formula funds in Title I, like all these 2337

other issues and how they affect rural 1 places. The flexibility issues for rural 2 people become all the more complex and this 3 office would address a lot of those issues. 4 So I'd ask that you keep that in 5 your deliberations. Thank you. 6 MR. RITSCH: Thanks, Rob. Nancy? 7 MS. REDER: Hi. I'm Nancy Reder 8 with the State Directors of Special 9 Education, NASDSE, and I want to thank you 10 for holding this forum and for putting the 11 notice out in the Federal Register andwe'll 12 submit some written comments. 13 I just wanted to say I concur 14 with everything that Rich said since we 15 worked together on the project. 16 One of the things I wanted to 17 urge you to think about as I was sitting 18 here listening to other comments iswhen you 19 take a look at the totality of where the 20 Department wants to go and we believe very 21 strongly in focusing on child outcomes, to 22 bear in mind what's going on at the state 2338 departments of education that will be 1 charged with implementing, and are charged 2 with implementing all of the regulations and 3 policies that you put into place. And just 4 know that a state like Alaska, for example, 5 which has exactly two people in their 6 state’s special education office, versus a 7 state like California that has well over a 8 hundred, have the same exact requirements 9 that they are responsible for implementing. 10 And the state agencies are laying 11 off people in droves. Texas, yesterday, or 12 earlier this week laid off, I think, well 13
over a hundred people across the board in 14 their state education agency. They still 15 have to do everything that you want them to 16 do, but we just urge you to focus on 17 outcomes. 18 And we appreciate the leadership 19 that Melody took in holding the forum to 20 take another look at the indicators and just 21 sort of look at the totality of things as 22 you think about what you're asking the 2339
states to do,because they are doing it with 1 a whole lot less. Thanks. 2 MR. RITSCH: Thank you. Michael? 3 MR. YUDIN: Thank you for that, 4 Nancy. And you know, we've talked a little 5 bit about, you know, moving from kind of a 6 culture of compliance to one of looking at 7 outcomes, but we're also actually really 8 trying to move away just from compliance to 9 providing the support. And I think that's 10 the point that I think you raise is that we 11 do want to look at outcomes. 12 We absolutely want to move from 13 compliance to outcomes. But we're also 14 dedicated to shifting thewaywe dobusiness 15 here at the Department and that's from 16 compliance to support, to supporting the 17 innovations and the reforms that our states 18 and our school districts want to take on. 19 So I appreciate your remarks. 20 MR. RITSCH: Hello, Mary Louise. 21 MS. EMBREY: Hello. Thank you 22 for having us
-- 2340
MR. RITSCH: You have a hand1 held. Are you going to sing? 2 MS. EMBREY: Hand-held because 3 it's a little tall for me. Thank you for 4 having us here and I just wanted to mention 5 in terms of the efficiency of collecting 6 data, as well as the processing of the data 7 at the federal level, that you consider 8 blending some funding streams. The health 9 and education streams shouldbe looked at, I 10 believe more closely in terms of blending 11 and looking
-- 12 MR. RITSCH: Let everyone know 13 who you're representing. 14 MS. EMBREY: I'm sorry. Mary 15 Louise Embrey, National Association of 16 School Nurses. Like for instance with the 17 DASH which is no longer going to be DASH, 18 where they were the health group collecting 19 data from educators, andpeople at HHSbeing 20
a much larger agency, have the capacity for 21
a lot of types of data collection. So I 22 would encourage you to both at the federal 2341
level and at the state level, as Nancy said, 1 with the reduced staff at state levels, it 2 would be better to find ways to have 3 cooperative agreements or Memoranda of 4 Understanding, to blend those sources and 5 collect the data and haveperhaps the agency 6 with more capacity, like HHS, to process a 7 lot of the data. 8 MR. RITSCH: That just raises a 9 question forme.Aswe're independently, as 10 agencies, looking at areas for flexibility, 11
are there discussions with other agencies 12 that might be partners and programs about 13 how we can do the kind of thing that Mary 14 Louise was talking about? 15 Denise? 16 MS. FORTE: Yes, that is a great 17 question, Massie. So in particular, in 18 terms of this current agenda, that's 19 something that we do want to highlight, and 20 this is across agency collaboration. As 21 many of you are familiar already, we are 22 engaged right now with HHS in terms of 2342 looking at the Race to the Top Early 1 Learning Challenge, but also Promise 2 Neighborhoods.We'vebeen talkingwith HHS, 3 HUD, and the Department of Justice. We know 4 that if we're able to collaborate better at 5 the federal level and look to ways that we 6
can eliminate certain barriers that that 7 will trickle down to the local level and 8 where you guys can get the greatest 9 outcomes. But we are certainly looking at 10
cross-agency collaboration issues. We've 11 been doing that here at the Department for a 12 while, even within Safe Schools Healthy 13 Children, which is an initiative that'sbeen 14 ongoing and we'll be looking for other 15 opportunities. 16 MR. RITSCH: Other comments, 17 questions? Yes, ma'am. 18 MS. HINES: Kim Hines with the 19 Council for Exceptional Children. Ijust 20 wanted to talk a little bit about the 21 waivers as opposed to some of the 22 duplicative data collection issues. 2343
We understand that everyone here 1
on thepanel and in the audience understands 2 the importance of maintaining subgroup 3 accountability and the disaggregation of 4 data thatNCLB drove and the importance, and 5 the changes that have been made for certain 6 student populations such as students with 7 disabilities, and having that information 8 and transparency. 9 And so my only comment is just to 10 say that in considering any waivers or 11 changes, there's interest in learning more 12 about the authority of what kind of waivers 13
can be issued, but we would just emphasize, 14 you know, that special education teachers 15
see subgroup accountability and 16 disaggregation of data as being really 17 critical to having a seat at the table, 18 having their students be recognized in 19 schools. And so we would just urge you to 20 maintain that. 21 MR. RITSCH: Thank you, Kim. Our 22 Secretary has indicated thatwe need to have 2344

a Plan B in the event that Congress is not 1 able to deliver a reauthorized package of 2 ESEA to the President's desk before the 3 beginning of the school year, so we are 4 looking for any input and this would be an 5 opportunity on what sort of flexibility 6 folks would be looking for and how that 7 might be paired with reforms as well, and 8 what should be preserved and not touched at 9 the same time. 10 Michael? 11 MR. YUDIN: And if I could just 12 add to that. The Secretary has made it 13 clear that ESEA reauthorization absolutely 14 remains our priority. It is the way to 15 address many of the issues and challenges 16 that the current law places for school 17 systems. 18 But you know, the Secretary has 19 made it clear that maintaining 20 accountability is going to continue. 21 There's no way this is going to be a free 22 pass and disaggregated accountability is 2345 absolutely critical. He's made that clear. 1 MR. RITSCH: Thank you, Kim. 2 Other thoughts along those lines or other 3 comments? We've locked the doors. We're 4 not going to let you out for another 40 5 minutes. From our panel, anything that you 6 all wanted to ask of the audience or 7 comments you wanted to make? 8 Denise? 9 MS. FORTE: As you continue to 10 think about these things, and I do think 11 Massie will open the doors probably before 12 40 minutes, don't forget that we do have a 13 couple of different ways for you to provide 14
us input. The Federal Register notice also 15 lists the questions that we posted earlier, 16
so as you continue to think about these 17 issues, know that for ESEA comments, 18 esea.comments@ed.gov offers you another 19 opportunityperhaps to speak specifically to 20 thewaiverpackage if that is something that 21 you'd like to do. 22 And regulations.gov offers 2346
another opportunity. But as you know, and 1
as we talked about earlier, we would like 2 you to be thinking about a wide range of 3 issues. Don't limit yourself to K-12 of 4 higher education issues.Processing of, you 5 know, different requests, whether it's 6 waivers or maintenance of effort, trying to 7 become more accountable and transparent to 8 you is also one of our goals. And we 9 appreciate the time that you're spending 10 with us today and we plan take advantage of 11 those inputs. 12 MR. RITSCH: Absolutely. This is 13
a topic thatprobably lends itselfbetter to 14 written comments as it can get quite 15 specific. So we welcome those. 16 And to the extent that your 17 associations have a stake in the work of 18 other agencies, they, of course, are looking 19 for some more input to comply with the 20 President's memorandum and so we would 21 encourage you to communicate with them and 22 let us knowwhere, asMary Louise suggested, 2347
there might be places that different 1 agencies couldbeworkingbetter together on 2 these issues. 3 I just want to put the call out 4 for any final comments or questions. 5 I want to thank you for your 6 attention and for coming out on a beautiful 7 day. We will look forward to seeing you 8 again another time and the transcript of 9 this session and video will be up on ed.gov 10 very soon. Have a great rest of your 11 afternoon. 12 (Whereupon, at 3:19 p.m., the 13 stakeholders forum was concluded.) 14