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 

Information Management 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 

Education
2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Welcome and Opening Comments, Massie Ritsch 3

Overview of the Administration's Flexibility 

Agenda, Denise Forte 5

Comment Session 15

Adjourn 48
3

1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

2 2:35 p.m.

3 MR. RITSCH: Welcome to the 

4 Department of Education on a beautiful day 

5 here in Washington. Today is Bastille Day, 

July 14th 6 , and in the spirit of that French 

7 holiday which was about independence we'll 

8 be talking about flexibility today in the 

9 form of independence here that we're seeking 

10 your input on.

11 I want to welcome folks here in 

12 the audience. I'm Massie Ritsch, head of 

13 our outreach operation here at the 

14 Department, and I want to welcome our 

15 viewers on USTREAM who are tuning in from 

16 who-knows-where to join us for today's 

17 forum.

18 The purpose today is to talk 

19 about the President's administrative 

20 flexibility agenda. As part of that, what 

21 we're hoping to get from you is a better 

22 sense of how we at the Department of 

23 Education can increase flexibility and 
4

1 reduce both the burden and the overall cost 

2 for education stakeholders in implementing 

3 programs and reforms, always of course with 

4 the goal of improving academic results for 

5 children.

6 As you likely know, in February, 

7 President Obama issued a formal memorandum 

8 that required federal agencies to report to 

9 OMB the actions taken and plans put forward 

10 to offer greater flexibility for federal 

11 programs that are operated by state, local, 

12 and tribal governments.

13 And to implement the directive in 

14 that memorandum, we've been working to 

15 identify administrative, regulatory, and 

16 legislative barriers that currently prevent 

17 states, localities, and tribes from best 

18 achieving their program goals and 

19 objectives.

20 One of the steps we've taken was 

21 formally publishing our own Federal Register

notice on July 6

th 22 , specifically requesting 

23 input from the field on how to reduce 
5

1 regulatory and administrative burden and 

2 furthermore, we wanted an opportunity for a 

3 more face-to-face exchange which is why 

4 we've asked you to come here today.

5 So here is how today will work. 

6 My colleague, Denise Forte, Deputy Assistant 

7 Secretary in the Office of Planning, 

8 Evaluation, and Policy Development, will 

9 give us an overview of the administration's 

10 flexibility agenda. We'll then rearrange 

11 the furniture a little bit, to accommodate 

12 bringing up more colleagues to the stage and 

13 into the conversation. We'll introduce 

14 those folks to you and then get into taking 

15 your comments and input today.

16 So with that I will bring Denise 

17 up.

18 Denise?

19 MS. FORTE: Good afternoon, 

20 everyone. Thanks for joining us this 

21 afternoon. I want to thank Massie for 

22 making me a little bit more French and 

23 Denise Forte -- my name is Denise Forte, 
6

1 that's okay. It's Bastille Day. But thanks 

2 for coming over and joining us.

3 Massie laid out for you our 

4 interest here today, but let me speak to you 

5 a little bit more about what is driving most 

6 of this. Earlier this year, the President 

7 issued a memorandum on administrative 

8 flexibility, lower costs, and better results 

9 for state, local, and tribal governments,

10 which is really a technical way of saying 

11 that we want to get out of the way. This 

12 memorandum launched a coordinated and 

13 government-wide effort to provide increased 

14 flexibility, reduce unnecessary burdens, and 

15 it is all about improving outcomes and 

16 reducing costs.

17 And it builds on an earlier 

18 initiative that the President had under an 

19 Executive Order which was released in 

20 January of this year entitled, "Improving 

21 Regulation and Regulatory Review" which 

22 calls for an analysis of agency regulations 

23 including a retrospective analysis in order 
7

1 to simplify redundant, inconsistent, or 

2 overlapping requirements.

3 So what was this really? It gave 

4 us directions -- directions from the 

5 President to the agencies and it was very 

6 clear. The President said to us that he 

7 wanted us to focus on accountability, on 

8 outcomes, rather than processes. He wanted 

9 to empower state and local and tribal 

10 governments to bring forward their visions 

11 and solutions for how public funds can be 

12 used more cost effectively to accomplish 

13 better results, and you all are already 

14 trying to do more with less. We want to be 

15 able to complement that work, and by 

16 complement, with an “E,” the hard work that 

17 you are already doing.

18 We want to avoid a one-size-fits19 all approach and, if necessary, offer 

20 flexibility on a conditional or experimental 

21 basis, if that's where the states are. And 

22 we also wanted to identify areas where 

23 cross-agency collaboration would further 
8

1 reduce administrative and regulatory 

2 barriers while improving outcomes.

3 So we have been very enthusiastic 

4 about this effort. In fact, we have a 

5 Department-wide ethic: flexibility must 

6 deliver outcomes, and we've been looking at 

7 how we can move away from solely being 

8 viewed as a monitoring agency that checks 

9 the boxes; instead of looking at whether a

10 state, school, or district has met a 

11 requirement, to one where we can be more 

12 focused on whether the desired outcomes have 

13 been achieved. 

14 And then earlier this year, we 

15 issued a primer to governors on the 

16 flexibilities that already exist. We've 

17 identified some additional areas that we 

18 think can have very broad implications for a 

19 wide set of stakeholders. This would 

20 include interagency collaboration for issues 

21 such as early learning, workforce 

22 development, and place-based initiatives 

23 such as Promise Neighborhoods. These are 
9

1 all areas where we can work with other 

2 agencies such as HHS, DOL, or HUD, the 

3 Department of Justice, and others, to 

4 streamline our applications, consolidate 

5 grants, and reduce regulations so that 

6 programs are more effective on the ground.

7 We also think that data certainly 

8 provides us another tool in our flexibility 

9 toolkit. This is more than just about 

10 building systems and collecting data 

11 elements, but we ourselves want to support a 

12 culture that uses information for decision 

13 making to create systems of continuous 

14 improvement. And we know that better 

15 information is needed for decisions at all 

16 levels of the education system.

17 And we've identified maintenance 

18 of effort as a key part of this, because we 

19 do believe that providing a better and more 

20 transparent system for how states are 

21 demonstrating that they have maintained 

22 state spending in education is something 

23 that has been called for.
10

1 Lastly, we have established a 

2 requirement task force here at the 

3 Department and that's chaired by the Office 

4 of the Deputy Secretary, Office of the 

5 General Counsel, Office of the 

6 Undersecretary, and the Office of Planning, 

7 Evaluation, and Policy Development, that 

8 will work with our different program 

9 officers and with our stakeholders to look 

10 at all of these areas to see where we can 

11 create greater flexibility and reduce some 

12 burden.

13 We do have deliverables. We want 

14 with you, with your input, to identify some 

15 high-impact areas where we think that we can 

16 have some broad implications for the widest 

17 set of stakeholders. We'll then be 

18 establishing some preliminary plans and 

19 actions, both short- and long-term on how we 

20 can achieve those areas, keeping in mind 

21 that we're always going to be focused on 

22 outcomes, and then a report to the Office of 

23 Office of Management and Budget by the end 
11

1 of August.

2 I did want to share with you some 

3 of our outreach efforts. This is one of 

4 them. We've also been attending 

5 conferences. We'll be attending an NCES 

6 Conference and doing some outreach there, as 

7 well as the OSEP Megaconference in early 

8 August to talk to some of our special 

9 educators. We also have a couple of 

10 opportunities for you to give your input 

11 outside of this venue through the Federal 

12 Register process, at www.regulations.gov, 

13 and then we've also set up an email address 

14 for ESEA comments at eseacomments@ed.gov.

15 Also, I wanted to share with you 

16 where you might be able to find the 

17 Executive Order and the Presidential 

18 Memorandum in case you have some additional 

19 questions on exactly what we're looking at. 

20 There’s also the Federal Register notice 

21 that will also direct you to our preliminary 

22 plan and retrospective analysis of the 

23 regulations that we've identified that we 
12

1 would like to take a look at.

2 Today, we have some heavy hitters 

3 that are going to be joining me up on stage 

4 and will participate as part of our 

5 listening panel. Among them, Elizabeth 

6 McFadden, who is our Deputy General Counsel, 

7 one of our Deputy General Counsels; Melody 

8 Musgrove, the Director over at OSEP; Ross 

9 Santy, who is our Director for PIMS which 

10 has primary responsibility for EdFACTS; 

11 Johan Uvin, who is our Deputy Assistant 

12 Secretary in the Office of Vocational and 

13 Adult Education; Michael Yudin, who is our 

14 Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Office of 

15 Elementary and Secretary Education; and 

16 Ajita Talwalker, who is joining us from the 

17 Office of the Undersecretary.

18 And I wanted to run through with 

19 you some of the questions that we've been 

20 thinking about here, but where we 

21 particularly need your input. 

22 Unfortunately, I can't leave these up, but I 

23 think these will help to frame some of the 
13

1 conversation as we open it up for questions. 

2 One -– these are some very overarching 

3 questions I think -- but certainly get to 

4 some of the ideas that we're looking for: 

5 What administrative regulatory and statutory 

6 requirements can be changed to reduce costs 

7 and unnecessary burdens?

8 What type of regulatory 

9 requirements should the Department consider 

10 waiving, subject of course, to the statutory 

11 waiver authority?

12 Should the Department be 

13 streamlining applications in the approval 

14 process for waivers, and if so, how?

15 Where could the Department reduce 

16 current reporting requirements that are not 

17 necessary?

18 And where are there opportunities 

19 to consolidate or streamline data collection 

20 or submission requirements?

21 How can the Department streamline 

22 or modify procedures that we use for 

23 processing requests for waivers, MOE 
14

1 requirements, and how to make them more 

2 transparent and uniform?

3 And then the last three: What 

4 are some of the cross-agency flexibilities 

5 or alignment that we need so that we can 

6 improve on early learning, workforce and 

7 place-based efforts?

8 What kind of flexibility can the 

9 Department offer itself to help facilitate 

10 some of the collaboration at and across 

11 state, local, and tribal governments?

12 And then where can we increase 

13 flexibility to drive the most improvements 

14 in program and student outcomes?

15 So we do need your help. We want 

16 your input. We hope that next hour or so 

17 will give you an opportunity to bring 

18 forward some ideas that you have. We're 

19 going to roll up the screen, move a table on 

20 stage and I'm going to ask my colleagues to 

21 come join me, and then Massie is going to 

22 start asking for questions. So we do 

23 appreciate your time today and look forward 
15

1 to hearing your comments.

2 MR. RITSCH: Merci, Madam Forte. 

3 So folks, we do have microphones, as we 

4 usually do, here and here. And we invite 

5 you to come up and make comments, offer 

6 input. We don't -- since we're looking for 

7 your input -- we don't necessarily have 

8 answers, so questions aren't necessarily 

9 going to be met with answers. But whatever 

10 you bring to the mic, I ask that you speak 

11 directly into it because we are transcribing 

12 this session and we are, as I said earlier,

13 webcasting it on our USTREAM channel. It's 

14 always helpful if you identify yourself. If 

15 you have an unusually spelled name, you 

16 might want to spell that for us, too. And 

17 let us know what organization you're with 

18 and who you're representing today.

19 Following the forum, we will, of 

20 course, post the transcript and we'll have 

21 the video available on our website, likely 

22 early next week.

23 So as we are decorating the stage 
16

1 for our panel, why don't we bring the panel 

2 up to join us? 

3 Denise previewed the group 

4 before. Have a seat, everybody, wherever 

5 you want, so that I then can let people know 

6 who you are.

7 Starting with Denise down on the 

8 end from our Policy Office, and then Melody 

9 Musgrove, who is the Director of the Office 

10 of Special Education Programs; Elizabeth 

11 McFadden, Deputy General Counsel; Ajita 

12 Talwalker, Special Assistant in the Office 

13 of the Undersecretary; Ross Santy, Director 

14 of the Performance Information Management 

15 Service; Michael Yudin, also Deputy 

16 Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

17 Secondary Education; and Johan Uvin, from th 

18 Office of Vocational and Adult Education.

19 Do we have enough chairs for 

20 everybody? Okay.

21 So please, join us by coming to 

22 the microphone on this side or this side and 

23 offer your thoughts. Because we are looking 
17

1 for input on a wide range of topics, all the 

2 programs and policies we have, this will 

3 probably be a wide-ranging discussion that 

4 is likely to jump around a bit. So we'll 

5 try and bring some focus to it as possible,

6 and group like things together, if we can.

7 But would anyone like to kick us 

8 off? Rich would. I was going to call on 

9 you, if you didn't. Is that microphone 

10 working over there? It is.

11 MR. LONG: First off, I'd like to 

12 point out that there's not public parking 

13 for bicycles at the Department. That should 

14 be taken care of.

15 MR. RITSCH: Noted.

16 MR. LONG: For those of us who 

17 are young at heart. My name is Richard 

18 Long. I'm with the National Title I 

19 Association. We did a set of work with the 

20 State Directors of Special Education, and we 

21 found a number of things that were 

22 befuddling in federal regulations which I 

23 know is shocking to everybody. But we found 
18

1 repeatedly that there were terms and ideas 

2 that were in both Title I and IDEA requiring 

3 collection of data, where the terms were 

4 exactly alike and frequently the definitions 

5 were quite different, either the definitions 

6 of the words themselves, the concepts 

7 themselves, or the time period that state 

8 and local people would have to collect two 

9 sets of data, essentially, for the same idea 

10 which, of course, is not efficient.

11 The issue also gets to another 

12 level of absurdity. We're finding that the 

13 requirements of the Department to become a 

14 data-driven organization and encourage the 

15 whole society to become that way is 

16 resulting in the states and locals having to 

17 fire programmatic people, content people,

18 and hire data people. And that's counter19 intuitive, counter-productive as well.

20 And then we also have found over 

21 time that the Department is collecting data 

22 that it itself doesn't have the ability to 

23 process. And that's something that I think 
19

1 you ought to take a look at because that 

2 would be one level of asking the question:

3 what's the utility of what we're doing? 

4 So if you don't have the ability 

5 to process the data, you shouldn't be 

6 requiring that data to be collected. And 

7 when I say you, I also actually mean all of 

8 us because those of us in the audience who 

9 have asked Congress to ask you to collect 

10 data, we caused part of that problem. 

11 Congress asked you to collect data. They 

12 caused part of that problem. And of course, 

13 you asked for data to be collected as well.

14 That's just one slice of an area 

15 where I think that you can be cutting down 

16 on the burden and also improving on the 

17 value. Thank you.

18 MR. RITSCH: And Rich, to your 

19 first point, the terms that might be alike, 

20 but definitionally different, are there any 

21 specific examples you wanted to cite or 

22 could the association send those along?

23 MR. LONG: We actually produced a 
20

1 paper that has several recommendations in 

2 there related to maintenance of effort. You 

3 can also get to things like graduation rates 

4 where there are some policy issues there. 

5 It's just not that the data is different, 

6 but there's also, if you look at many of the 

7 requirements across both of these areas and 

8 we believe we have, about two and a half 

9 million kids we share in both areas where

10 the timelines are different, but sometimes 

11 the data point is actually the same, but you 

12 can't use the same data point twice because 

13 the timelines are different. And that lack 

14 of congruence is expensive and discerning.

15 MR. RITSCH: And is there 

16 particular data that we collect that you say 

17 we're not able to process that you wanted to 

18 --

19 MR. LONG: Yes, I was doing a 

20 paper last year on ELL and we knew that you 

21 had the data on not just the number of kids, 

22 but some of the qualitative issues involved 

23 there and that it's very expensive to 
21

1 produce. And when we called to the 

2 Department because we thought “oh good, this 

3 will be very helpful on our planning,” and

4 we found that the Department didn't have the 

5 resources to process the data. And so that 

6 was done by chance, so that was either an 

7 idiosyncratic moment. More likely, it's 

8 indicative of other issues. 

9 I don't believe that you would 

10 say at the end of every data collection 

11 requirement: are we able to process this 

12 data? But I think that should be part of 

13 your management review.

14 MR. RITSCH: Okay, thank you. 

15 Thank you for acknowledging that sometimes 

16 the things we require of you have been asked 

17 by others, including associations and 

18 Congress.

19 Michael?

20 MR. YUDIN: Yes, I just wanted to 

21 note and I think you know this, the 

22 Secretary met with members of the disability 

23 community, advocacy community, a number of 
22

1 weeks ago. And he has, in fact, charged 

2 OESE, in working with OSERS and OPEPD, to 

3 convene a working group to look at the types 

4 of issues that you're talking about. How do 

5 we better align our data collection, the 

6 definitions, our performance reporting and 

7 monitoring. It makes absolute sense to do a 

8 much, much better job of aligning these two 

9 programs in particular, IDEA and ESEA. So 

10 we've already begun that work, so thank you.

11 MR. RITSCH: Thank you, Rich. 

12 Others?

13 Jim, Laura, come on up.

14 MS. KALOI: I am Laura Kaloi. 

15 I'm the public policy director with the 

16 National Center for Learning Disabilities 

17 and I did come prepared to say a few things, 

18 but in light of what Rich said, I think it's 

19 really important to just build on that and 

20 point out that in light of your priority to 

21 increase alignment in K to 12 and focus on 

22 improving student outcomes, we actually 

23 appreciate the work that's been by OSEP to 
23

1 review the guidance generated by the 

2 Department regarding the state performance 

3 plan and annual performance reports, and we 

4 think this is a really good step forward and 

5 should be a major priority, and that that 

6 momentum shouldn't be lost.

7 The process you used to determine 

8 adequate implementation of IDEA is really 

9 important and current guidance submits 

10 consideration of performance indicators such 

11 as graduation rate, dropout rate, and 

12 proficiency on state assessments in making 

13 both the SEA and the LEA determinations 

14 under the Department of Ed's requirements.

15 So in addition we think it could 

16 be argued that existing indicators contain 

17 process-focused redundancies that could be 

18 streamlined.

19 We think if you really wanted to 

20 make changes to guidance that will improve 

21 outcomes for students, the current guidance 

22 could be closely examined, particularly its 

23 alignment to Congressional intent so that 
24

1 we're looking at outcomes and not so much at

2 process.

3 So that's one of the specific 

4 things that I wanted to point out today. 

5 And we will be making more extensive written 

6 comments, but I also came to explicitly talk 

7 to you about intent regarding a review of 

8 the regulations for the Individuals With 

9 Disabilities Education Act and urge you to 

10 exercise some caution. We know it took at 

11 least two years in the last three 

12 authorizations of IDEA to generate those 

13 regulations, the guidance that followed, and 

14 the proposed regulations. We're concerned

15 that because the reauthorization of IDEA is 

16 meant to happen after the Elementary and 

17 Secondary Education Act reauthorization, 

18 that it might be premature to review the 

19 IDEA regulations. 

20 If you decide to proceed, we want 

21 to make sure that you closely think about 

22 the civil rights aspect of IDEA, that it is 

23 also blended with a grant program to states 
25

1 and that you take particular care when 

2 weighing the significance of burden 

3 expressed by the states, because those who 

4 possess rights under IDEA, the children who 

5 have disabilities and their parents, they 

6 need equal if not greater consideration in 

7 the context of any proposed changes.

8 And so we want you to think about 

9 the Congressional reauthorization in 2004 

10 and how it sought to address some of these 

11 burdens through our Paperwork Reduction Act 

12 and the pilots that were put forward, and 

13 that no states stepped forward to actually 

14 conduct those pilots.

15 And so we think perhaps that the 

16 burden wasn't as severe as was expressed 

17 seven years ago. So we just offer that for 

18 thought and we'll provide more extensive 

19 comments as appropriate. Thank you.

20 MR. RITSCH: Thanks. Melody?

21 MS. MUSGROVE: Sure. First, I'd 

22 like to speak to the SPPAPR, the State 

23 Performance Plan Annual Performance Report, 
26

1 work that's being done. Thank you for your 

2 involvement and we convened a great 

3 stakeholder group to look at those 

4 requirements, to look at the indicators and 

5 to determine if there are ways that we can 

6 be more efficient with our data that can 

7 make the process more meaningful. 

8 And so we look forward to acting 

9 on those recommendations from that group and 

10 we absolutely are committed to continuing 

11 that work. So thank you for that. I

12 appreciate your input on that.

13 MR. RITSCH: Thanks, Laura. Jim?

14 MR. KOHLMOOS: Bon jour. Well, 

15 it is Bastille Day and we should celebrate 

16 the defeat of the French women a couple of 

17 days ago.

18 (Laughter.)

19 My name is Jim Kohlmoos and I'm 

20 from Knowledge Alliance. And the 

21 difficulty, the difficult position that 

22 you're in, is challenging because on the one 

23 hand you want to promote flexibility in the 
27

1 focus on results, not just on compliance. 

2 And on the other side of the coin, you have 

3 to balance that with how to ensure the 

4 taxpayer money is being used properly.

5 And one very small issue or 

6 seemingly small issue that probably you 

7 don't want to bother with, but I would like 

8 to raise, is in this regard: that for a lot 

9 of contracts and programs that require 

10 convening of people, particularly state and 

11 local education folks, there are serious 

12 prohibitions against feeding them when they 

13 come to meetings. And that may sound 

14 ridiculous, but in order for meetings to 

15 happen and to flow and what have you, it 

16 would be really nice to lift some of those 

17 restrictions on food. And I'm sure there 

18 are many other kind of detailed points like 

19 that that require a super amount of micro 

20 managing of activities that are legitimate 

21 and important to the overall mission of the 

22 Department. So I would just like to put 

23 that on the table.
28

1 MR. RITSCH: Have you availed 

2 yourself of our complementary water?

3 MR. KOHLMOOS: Thank you very 

4 much.

5 (Laughter.)

6 MR. RITSCH: Are there any menus 

7 you wanted to suggest? No, we hear you. We 

8 encounter that, of course, in our own 

9 programs that we put on here. It can be 

10 difficult to do the kinds of things you want 

11 to do and use full days when you can't offer 

12 that to people.

13 Does anyone want to say anything 

14 about that? Thank you, Jim. Nothing is too 

15 small here to suggest after all. We're 

16 looking for low-hanging fruit as well as 

17 things that are harder to get at.

18 Yes, sir.

19 MR. SLOVENIC: I'm Joe Slovenic. 

20 I recently completed the Georgetown 

21 University Workforce Investment Act Program 

22 and I had emailed you that I wanted to 

23 follow up on the talk with Arne Duncan about 
29

that issue on January 24th 1 , and also a talk 

2 that we had at a function with Danny Davis 

3 where Arne Duncan and Gerri Fiala were on 

4 February 28th.

5 I'm looking for cooperation 

6 between Arne Duncan, Hilda Solis in talking 

7 to Georgetown on follow-up on my program. 

8 Unfortunately, it has not gone well. I

9 think the President needs to pay some 

10 attention about workforce development, about 

11 the relationship between Hilda Solis and the 

12 D.C. Department of Employment Services. 

13 Several universities have either quit using 

14 the program or asked to stop using the 

15 Workforce Investment Act Program. 

16 Georgetown, after I left there in 

17 February 2011, and George Washington 

18 University, where I tried to enroll in 2010,

19 face a lot of obstacles from the DOES. The 

20 same thing happened at Strayer when I tried 

21 to enroll there in April 2010. DOES 

22 processed me a day late. Howard, Potomac, 

23 they all dropped out of WIA. 
30

1 Now in regards to flexibility 

2 about improving the outcomes, I'm going to 

3 concentrate on what the President said about 

4 improving the outcomes. I think there's a 

5 conflict between some stinginess I found 

6 from D.C. Department of Employment Services 

7 because they wouldn't allow me to start a 

8 program until I ran out of 99 weeks of 

9 unemployment insurance and I've only got 

10 about $200 in the bank. In January, I only 

11 earned $17. I've had no income since 

12 January.

13 D.C. Department of Employment 

14 Services is very stubborn about not wanting 

15 to give me money for dry cleaning, my own 

16 personal expenses, for this job search. I

17 haven't gotten an offer yet. They would not 

18 talk to Georgetown's Financial Aid Office 

19 about paying my expenses. And they've also 

20 ignored my request to get a paid on-the-job 

21 program from D.C. since March of 2011 with 

22 my desperate financial circumstances. So 

23 there's kind of a bad program outcome. I
31

1 did not receive a job placement and I think 

2 D.C. is a detriment to my long-term goals.

3 I was a little more prepared in 

4 what I was going to say. I had wanted to 

5 emphasize to you because Georgetown was not 

6 too receptive to a dialogue which I proposed 

7 and it's kind of unfortunately your decision 

8 what to do, which I think could be good, but 

9 we need to have politeness to the faculty 

10 who taught me. Professor Larry Joseph, 

11 Professor Charles McClelland, Professor Jeff 

12 Stempien, they're very distinguished and 

13 have many years of experience in government 

14 agencies, both in civilian and labor-related 

15 areas, housing, Defense Department work, 

16 Energy Department work with Larry Joseph. 

17 And I give them all A to A-minus ratings. 

18 So I do want to have them respected.

19 I think with Larry Joseph, he 

20 said that his son played basketball with 

21 Arne Duncan at the University of Chicago,

22 and Larry Joseph was considering teaching 

23 project management at the University of 
32

1 Chicago. Now I think President Obama would 

2 say, “Well, there is an opportunity. Larry 

3 Joseph may want to teach there.” I'm 

4 willing to positively recommend to Governor 

5 Pat Quinn and I think Mr. Ridley, to explore 

6 talks with Larry about economic development 

7 if --

8 MR. RITSCH: Maybe we're getting 

9 a little bit off the topic here of 

10 flexibility. If I can extrapolate from your 

11 earlier comments and I want to make sure 

12 that maybe afterward we can follow up with 

13 you personally as we did in January when you 

14 came, and we connected you with Johan's 

15 office in the Office of Vocational and Adult 

16 Education.

17 It sounds like maybe you are 

18 suggesting that in some of the job training 

19 programs that you sought to be part of that 

20 there were certain restrictions that you 

21 would have considered yourself a natural 

22 candidate to enroll in those programs, but 

23 there were certain burdens or certain 
33

1 requirements that you didn't quite yet meet.

2 MR. SLOVENIC: Yes.

3 MR. RITSCH: That prevented you 

4 from taking advantage of those services.

5 MR. SLOVENIC: No. I would just

6 say there was a total -- going AWOL -- a 

7 total abandonment of the goals that Arne and 

I tried to set on January 24th 8 . Gerri Fiala 

9 would not respond to an email I sent her in 

10 March. She did not talk to Georgetown. I

11 spent a few minutes with Linda Greenan and -

12 -

13 MR. RITSCH: This would not be a 

14 place to air those particular personal 

15 disagreements that you have. But if I could 

16 ask Johan, and I'd be happy also to talk 

17 with you afterward about your particular 

18 situation and see if we can get a better 

19 sense of how we can help at the Department.

20 MR. SLOVENIC: Okay, because 

21 there's a danger of my bankruptcy within a 

22 month. I may try to go to the University of 

23 Phoenix --
34

1 MR. RITSCH: I understand.

2 MR. SLOVENIC: I do need to talk 

3 to Stephanie Kunis about --

4 MR. RITSCH: Let's talk 

5 afterwards, all right. We need to move on 

6 to some of our other commentators to stay 

7 focused on our topic today which is 

8 flexibility and where we can bring it about.

9 MR. SLOVENIC: I tried Georgetown 

10 Human Resources also, but I don't feel that 

11 you should blame it on Georgetown. I worked 

12 for the Obama campaign in 2008 and they 

13 should have gotten involved in the training 

14 also. Thank you.

15 MR. RITSCH: Thank you. Hello, 

16 Rob.

17 MR. MAHAFFEY: Hello, Massie. I

18 don't speak French. My name is Robert 

19 Mahaffey. I'm with the Rural School and 

20 Community Trust. Thank you for hosting this 

21 briefing, as always. 

22 We had a briefing on the Senate 

23 side with regard to Senate 946 and I know 
35

1 you're not going to comment on any pending 

2 piece of legislation, but the bill would 

3 establish an Office of Rural Education 

4 Policy here at the Department that would be 

5 part of the Office of the Assistant 

6 Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Ed.

7 And at the heart of the bill --

8 and it has 18 Senate co-sponsors now, with 

9 the original sponsors being Senator Baucus 

10 and Senator Rockefeller -- the heart of the 

11 bill is at flexibility when it comes to 

12 rural schools and research and looking at 

13 how the Department can have an independent 

14 arm that's modeled after the Office of Rural 

15 Health Policy at HHS which has had a 

16 successful track record for 25 years.

17 The Department has not issued a 

18 statement either for or against the bill. 

19 They've been very, very helpful with regard 

20 to the technical review, and the staff that 

21 we've been working across the Senate have 

22 been very appreciative of that. And the 

23 Secretary's efforts around rural outreach, 
36

1 rural engagement, his commitment to rural 

2 schools is greatly appreciated by the Rural 

3 School and Community Trust as well.

4 However, those efforts really are 

5 engaged in outreach, communication, 

6 partnership building, all very, very 

7 important. They do not focus on research 

8 that is authentic and valid, that can be 

9 used to support the programs of the 

10 Department like Investing in Innovation, 

11 like Race to the Top, like all these other 

12 efforts.

13 So my question is really more of 

14 a comment, and as you're going through this 

15 process internally, we would hope that you 

16 would look at particular populations. As 

17 difficult and as complex as they may be to 

18 define, but with regard to rural children 

19 and rural schools and all the other 

20 attendant federal policies that impact them 

21 like the reauthorization of the Rural 

22 Education Advancement Program, like the 

23 formula funds in Title I, like all these 
37

1 other issues and how they affect rural 

2 places. The flexibility issues for rural 

3 people become all the more complex and this 

4 office would address a lot of those issues.

5 So I'd ask that you keep that in 

6 your deliberations. Thank you.

7 MR. RITSCH: Thanks, Rob. Nancy?

8 MS. REDER: Hi. I'm Nancy Reder 

9 with the State Directors of Special 

10 Education, NASDSE, and I want to thank you 

11 for holding this forum and for putting the 

12 notice out in the Federal Register and we'll 

13 submit some written comments.

14 I just wanted to say I concur 

15 with everything that Rich said since we 

16 worked together on the project.

17 One of the things I wanted to 

18 urge you to think about as I was sitting 

19 here listening to other comments is when you 

20 take a look at the totality of where the 

21 Department wants to go and we believe very 

22 strongly in focusing on child outcomes, to 

23 bear in mind what's going on at the state 
38

1 departments of education that will be 

2 charged with implementing, and are charged 

3 with implementing all of the regulations and 

4 policies that you put into place. And just 

5 know that a state like Alaska, for example, 

6 which has exactly two people in their 

7 state’s special education office, versus a 

8 state like California that has well over a 

9 hundred, have the same exact requirements 

10 that they are responsible for implementing.

11 And the state agencies are laying 

12 off people in droves. Texas, yesterday, or 

13 earlier this week laid off, I think, well 

14 over a hundred people across the board in 

15 their state education agency. They still 

16 have to do everything that you want them to 

17 do, but we just urge you to focus on 

18 outcomes. 

19 And we appreciate the leadership 

20 that Melody took in holding the forum to 

21 take another look at the indicators and just 

22 sort of look at the totality of things as 

23 you think about what you're asking the 
39

1 states to do, because they are doing it with 

2 a whole lot less. Thanks.

3 MR. RITSCH: Thank you. Michael?

4 MR. YUDIN: Thank you for that, 

5 Nancy. And you know, we've talked a little 

6 bit about, you know, moving from kind of a 

7 culture of compliance to one of looking at 

8 outcomes, but we're also actually really 

9 trying to move away just from compliance to 

10 providing the support. And I think that's 

11 the point that I think you raise is that we 

12 do want to look at outcomes. 

13 We absolutely want to move from 

14 compliance to outcomes. But we're also 

15 dedicated to shifting the way we do business 

16 here at the Department and that's from 

17 compliance to support, to supporting the 

18 innovations and the reforms that our states 

19 and our school districts want to take on. 

20 So I appreciate your remarks.

21 MR. RITSCH: Hello, Mary Louise.

22 MS. EMBREY: Hello. Thank you 

23 for having us --
40

1 MR. RITSCH: You have a hand2 held. Are you going to sing?

3 MS. EMBREY: Hand-held because 

4 it's a little tall for me. Thank you for 

5 having us here and I just wanted to mention 

6 in terms of the efficiency of collecting 

7 data, as well as the processing of the data 

8 at the federal level, that you consider 

9 blending some funding streams. The health 

10 and education streams should be looked at, I 

11 believe more closely in terms of blending 

12 and looking --

13 MR. RITSCH: Let everyone know 

14 who you're representing.

15 MS. EMBREY: I'm sorry. Mary 

16 Louise Embrey, National Association of 

17 School Nurses. Like for instance with the 

18 DASH which is no longer going to be DASH, 

19 where they were the health group collecting 

20 data from educators, and people at HHS being 

21 a much larger agency, have the capacity for 

22 a lot of types of data collection. So I 

23 would encourage you to both at the federal 
41

1 level and at the state level, as Nancy said, 

2 with the reduced staff at state levels, it 

3 would be better to find ways to have 

4 cooperative agreements or Memoranda of 

5 Understanding, to blend those sources and 

6 collect the data and have perhaps the agency 

7 with more capacity, like HHS, to process a 

8 lot of the data.

9 MR. RITSCH: That just raises a 

10 question for me. As we're independently, as 

11 agencies, looking at areas for flexibility, 

12 are there discussions with other agencies 

13 that might be partners and programs about 

14 how we can do the kind of thing that Mary 

15 Louise was talking about?

16 Denise?

17 MS. FORTE: Yes, that is a great 

18 question, Massie. So in particular, in 

19 terms of this current agenda, that's 

20 something that we do want to highlight, and 

21 this is across agency collaboration. As 

22 many of you are familiar already, we are 

23 engaged right now with HHS in terms of 
42

1 looking at the Race to the Top Early 

2 Learning Challenge, but also Promise 

3 Neighborhoods. We've been talking with HHS, 

4 HUD, and the Department of Justice. We know 

5 that if we're able to collaborate better at 

6 the federal level and look to ways that we 

7 can eliminate certain barriers that that 

8 will trickle down to the local level and 

9 where you guys can get the greatest 

10 outcomes. But we are certainly looking at 

11 cross-agency collaboration issues. We've 

12 been doing that here at the Department for a 

13 while, even within Safe Schools Healthy 

14 Children, which is an initiative that's been 

15 ongoing and we'll be looking for other 

16 opportunities.

17 MR. RITSCH: Other comments, 

18 questions? Yes, ma'am.

19 MS. HINES: Kim Hines with the 

20 Council for Exceptional Children. I just 

21 wanted to talk a little bit about the 

22 waivers as opposed to some of the 

23 duplicative data collection issues. 
43

1 We understand that everyone here 

2 on the panel and in the audience understands 

3 the importance of maintaining subgroup 

4 accountability and the disaggregation of 

5 data that NCLB drove and the importance, and 

6 the changes that have been made for certain 

7 student populations such as students with 

8 disabilities, and having that information 

9 and transparency. 

10 And so my only comment is just to 

11 say that in considering any waivers or 

12 changes, there's interest in learning more 

13 about the authority of what kind of waivers 

14 can be issued, but we would just emphasize, 

15 you know, that special education teachers 

16 see subgroup accountability and 

17 disaggregation of data as being really 

18 critical to having a seat at the table, 

19 having their students be recognized in 

20 schools. And so we would just urge you to 

21 maintain that.

22 MR. RITSCH: Thank you, Kim. Our 

23 Secretary has indicated that we need to have 
44

1 a Plan B in the event that Congress is not 

2 able to deliver a reauthorized package of 

3 ESEA to the President's desk before the 

4 beginning of the school year, so we are 

5 looking for any input and this would be an 

6 opportunity on what sort of flexibility 

7 folks would be looking for and how that 

8 might be paired with reforms as well, and 

9 what should be preserved and not touched at 

10 the same time.

11 Michael?

12 MR. YUDIN: And if I could just 

13 add to that. The Secretary has made it 

14 clear that ESEA reauthorization absolutely 

15 remains our priority. It is the way to 

16 address many of the issues and challenges 

17 that the current law places for school 

18 systems.

19 But you know, the Secretary has 

20 made it clear that maintaining 

21 accountability is going to continue. 

22 There's no way this is going to be a free 

23 pass and disaggregated accountability is 
45

1 absolutely critical. He's made that clear.

2 MR. RITSCH: Thank you, Kim. 

3 Other thoughts along those lines or other

4 comments? We've locked the doors. We're 

5 not going to let you out for another 40 

6 minutes. From our panel, anything that you 

7 all wanted to ask of the audience or 

8 comments you wanted to make?

9 Denise?

10 MS. FORTE: As you continue to 

11 think about these things, and I do think 

12 Massie will open the doors probably before 

13 40 minutes, don't forget that we do have a 

14 couple of different ways for you to provide 

15 us input. The Federal Register notice also 

16 lists the questions that we posted earlier, 

17 so as you continue to think about these 

18 issues, know that for ESEA comments, 

19 esea.comments@ed.gov offers you another 

20 opportunity perhaps to speak specifically to 

21 the waiver package if that is something that 

22 you'd like to do.

23 And regulations.gov offers 
46

1 another opportunity. But as you know, and 

2 as we talked about earlier, we would like 

3 you to be thinking about a wide range of 

4 issues. Don't limit yourself to K-12 of 

5 higher education issues. Processing of, you 

6 know, different requests, whether it's 

7 waivers or maintenance of effort, trying to 

8 become more accountable and transparent to 

9 you is also one of our goals. And we 

10 appreciate the time that you're spending 

11 with us today and we plan take advantage of 

12 those inputs.

13 MR. RITSCH: Absolutely. This is 

14 a topic that probably lends itself better to 

15 written comments as it can get quite 

16 specific. So we welcome those.

17 And to the extent that your 

18 associations have a stake in the work of 

19 other agencies, they, of course, are looking 

20 for some more input to comply with the 

21 President's memorandum and so we would 

22 encourage you to communicate with them and 

23 let us know where, as Mary Louise suggested, 
47

1 there might be places that different 

2 agencies could be working better together on 

3 these issues.

4 I just want to put the call out 

5 for any final comments or questions. 

6 I want to thank you for your 

7 attention and for coming out on a beautiful 

8 day. We will look forward to seeing you 

9 again another time and the transcript of 

10 this session and video will be up on ed.gov 

11 very soon. Have a great rest of your 

12 afternoon.

13 (Whereupon, at 3:19 p.m., the 

14 stakeholders forum was concluded.)