Spent by Education Departments you are going to miss some services that are provided in a Community School concept, maybe by social services. You might not count some of the services that are provided by a boys girls club. Excuse me for interrupting. I want to make sure everyone has their five minutes. Go ahead and wind up. Winding up now. If you count dollars district make in teacher placement decisions based on specific salary or benefit costs so things look, you will worry about things looking equal, instead of saying are we actually giving services to our students, all were saying is why in the world would you want to cut off reasonable flexibility that a district might have in giving something creative and meaningful to it our students and discourage districts from finding those creative solutions. We hope you will make your intent crystal clear. And in closing i would just say we are ready, willing and able to find those creative solutions. Were excited being at the table and appreciate you giving us the chance to show you what we can do. Thank you. Miss weingarten. Thank you. Am i on now . You were. Thank you. Take as state superintendent to tell me that, thank you. So my name is randi winegarten. Im president of the aft and i am, it is my privilege to be here to talk about our views on the implementation of esea but i do want to start where my colleague said, Lily Eskelsen garcia started as well, i can not thank this committee, particularly senator alexander and senator murray enough for listening to parents and practitioners and helping to navigate this bill to law and to break the gridlock in d. C. To enact esea. We need to that you over and over again on that issue. What i wanted to discuss was the promise of esea but i will focus my comments on the regulatory pros ses on esea, not plant revisions and what we anticipate will be released on accountability systems. We at the aft view the policy details through the lens whether they both work in americas classrooms and reflect the voices of educators and i particularly today am speaking with two decades of experience in the Largest School district in the night where we actually had to deal and had to work through and make sure equity mattered in some of these provisions. I am particularly pleased that senator murray and representative scott, as senator murray has already referred, reiterated the priority that getting the voices of practitioners and parents in this implementation is absolutely critical. Unfortunately in its first regulatory action the proposed supply plenty, not supplant rules the Education Department demonstrated it was neither listening to stakeholders or following the framework of the legislation. Instead by conflating as senator alexander has already said the supplement not supplant and comparability policies the department seems to be pushing or pursuing an agenda that was rejected in the legislative process. Now the pursuit of both equity and excellence for our children is part of the afts dna and there are several ways to do this. One through full funding of title one. One we will keep citing for through the appropriations process. I would suspect almost anyone involved in education would fighting to level up spending rather than level down spending so that schools currently spending the least could be made whole. In addition esea continues important equity safeguards so states can not deny disadvantaged children that the federal government provided to level the Playing Field that includes maintenance of effort provisions as well as sns provisions as well as the way title i formula is structure as we all fought very hard as you all know. Why i disagree with the departments supplement, not supplant proposal. The department, as lily said, wants to make dollar per dollar comparisons rather than what happens right now. This is what that means in practical terms. Right now principals have number of people they can hire based on positions rather than exact dollar amount they can spend. That principal, if that changes, then a teachers salary and benefit is what will determine whether the teacher gets hired, whether the teacher gets retained or whether the teacher gets transferred, not anything else. Not what the school needs to run a program. Not what the schools particular programmatic focus is, not the needs of schoolchildren. So what will happen is that some schools will face cuts that will compel them to make nowin choices about which teachers they keep or they hire. Dollar for dollar comparisons, and i can talk about this for hours because i have lived this. Dollar for dollar comparisons in district can even be thrown off by something as simple how many teachers in each school have individual Health Coverage as opposed to family coverage. The difference between 5,000 for coverage and 20,000 for coverage. These type of unintended consequences are major disruptions have nothing to do with equity or opportunity. When you force districts to count exact spending in school the goals get lost in translation. We can not equalize spending that way. Finally, we are concerned that the Education Department will take the level of prescription proposed for supplement not supplant to the upcoming regulations on school and district accountability systems. This could strip the flexibility necessary to create accountability systems that envision new ways to define and measure learning as opposed to the current and far too restrictive and counterproductive focus on test scores. The promise of esea lies in the opportunity for states, excuse me, with broader Stakeholder Input to create robust systems of accountability that redefine how we measure learning so that learning is really about learning, not simply math and english test scores. Thaw very much, im sorry i went over by 34 second. But it was enthusiastic 34 seconds. Thank you, miss winegarten. Dr. Evers. Thank you chairman alexander and Ranking Member murray and members of the committee for allowing me to testify today. It is good to be back. Im back again. As i highlighted in previous testimony before this committee, states and local leaders are committed to making sure all kids achieve at the highest level. In no child left behind overly prescriptive federal mandates left states and local districts without the ability to taylor strategies to meet the needs of their kids. As a lifelong educator i believe we must learn from our mistakes. As we have every Student Succeeds act which gives us a chance to move our local Education Systems forward. Esessa is sees our challenges in the new eyes hoping to find a solution that makes difference for kids. I set invitation to convene primary advisory group, wisconsin equity and essa stakeholder council. I reached out to National Civil sites organizations and groups that had not traditionally focused exclusively on k12 issues. As i told prospective members of this council and in the invitation we need a diversity of experience and expertise if we are successful closing one of the nations largest achievement gaps. That is in the state of wisconsin. In addition to this council wisconsins broader outreach plan consists of three inperson facilitated listening sessions and two virtual sessions. We also use webbased feedback for anyone in the state who wants to provide us information and this information will be received and used with the to inform the Equity Council as they convene. So im proud of the work were doing in wisconsin and i believe the best solutions often come from places closest to the kids. To support states in doing that kind of local work, regulation and guidance has been said beveledded by essa should be limited to proking clarity on otherwise ambiguous and confusing areas, not implementing requirements that were not envisioned by congress. Flexibility has been a central element of essa. Because i believe there is recognitions that the states have very different systems and supports for k12 education. The flexibility currently provided in the law allows state to focusmost important and difficult work ahead to support each and every student in United States. In contrast the regulations that the Department Proposed in negotiated rule making process on supplement, supplement, not supplant, they were wellintended i will grant them that but it would have significant impacts on our students drawing focus away from Student Learning in service to unwieldy fiscal balancing acts. It is the responsibility of School Leaders to put the best teachers in front of kids who need them the most. They weigh qualifications, diversity, skillsets and in service to kids they contemplate optimal grade configurations, staffing patterns, facility needs, all with an eye towards increased student achievement for all kids. I worry that the proposed supplement not supplant rules reduce these complex decisions to an overly simplified financial calculation which at the end of the day does not actually guarranty Student Access to high quality educators. As a member of the negotiated Rulemaking Committee i understand the argument on both sides of this issue but it is clear that i also believe and it is clear that the proposed regulations on supplement supplant exceed the departments authority under the law. State and local schools absolutely have the responsibility to their kids to examine current federal funding and how it is used. They owe it to parents and families that they support, that they have discussions that are open and meaningful and transparent. And they need to be sure theyre reaching all the people that make up their School Community but that type of authentic discussion and problem solving simply can not be achieved through a federal mandate. I firmly believe that states should be held accountable for their students results, when comes to both funding and educational practices states are committed using Additional Fund flexibility found in essa to improve education outcomes for all kids. Let us lead the way and thank you so much again for allowing me to testify and i look forward to your questions. Dr. Ahart. Good morning chairman alexander, senator murray and the rest of the Health Committee and thank you for your leadership on finally achieving reauthorization of essa, long overdue. I am tom ahart, superintendent of the Des Moines Public Schools. With my seven member board of education im responsible for education of the Largest School district in the state of iowa. Were committing to meeting Educational Needs of each one of our students by recruiting and supporting a team of talented professionals in each of our 63 schools. Our 33,000 students were born in 106 different countries, speak over 100 languages, qualify and free and reduced priced meals at rate of 75 and 58 minority. That commitment is reflected in steady increase in our Graduation Rate and reading and math, science proficiency rates and success in closing achievement gaps. Des moines continues to operate under the antiquated no child left behind act which i was one of the few states without a lcb waiver. We welcome the every Student Succeeds act and were working closely with the state department of education on statewide implementation process virile allly all the representatives of the essa Negotiations Committee express expressed concerns about number of proposed regulations. Operational concerns relate to regulatory barriers to effective Instructional Services for students, student autonomy, unworkable criteria, unnecessary requirements additional costs and unrealistic administratively created obligations. While regulations are intended to clarify provisions statute and at sis, many conditions redefine and even expand essa. Im hardpressed to identify any regulatory additions offered by the Education Department that are necessary for effective implementation at the local level. The most troubling regulatory proposal as many others have mentioned was the departments draft regulation to impose per pupil expenditure comparability rights under supplement, not supplant provision of the act. Despite no changes in the current essa comparability provisions the Department Draft the supplement, not supplant would require accountability with title i schools and nontitle i schools. That would require salary equivalency between such schools. As senator exare lex already mentioned since the nations teacher salary system is based on years of experience and advanced he had education. Schools with lower higher paid more over current federal requirements insure same number of fulltime equivalent teachers are implied in title i as nonTitle One Schools. To comply districts would have to spend state and local fund to salary differential between higher paid and lower paid salaried teachers. Districts could potentially shift higher paid teachers to title i schools and lower paid teachers to nontitle i schools. Unfortunately another options correlate with student performance. Stated simply there is no relationship between schoolery level and teacher effectiveness. School districts clearly do not have the state and local fund to cover the salary differential costs of compliance nor should districts disrupt could not continuity by summarily transfer teachers. Moreover the teacher transfer option would violate most collective bargaining agreements. Many districts would be face with impossibility of performance of regulations which have no basis in the act and violate three statutory provisions in essa. I hasten to add none of the Solutions Even if possible to implement reflect best education practicetics. What is lost on the Department Many high poverty schools are not served with title i because frankly there is not enough to go around. 40 free and reduced rate can qualify for a school for time. I Services Just as Des Moines Public Schools we have multiple schools with over 70 free and reduced price lunch rate we are not able to provide with time. I services. Our ability to serve schools with concentrated poverty with time. I funds would you jeopardized under the regulations. If essa was fasted with broad sport at national and state and local levels. During the negotiated rule making process could undermined that broad support. No child left behind has demonstrated best intentions for improving achievement of at risk students can not be micromanaged from federal level. I would suggest state and local officials given the opportunity to get it under essa. On the other hand, the Education Department could be helpful issuing nonregulatory guidance that provides a nonexclusive, range of examples of implementation options for various provisions of the essa. There is no such thing as one size fits all. In iowa the broad range of individual district characteristics vary widely. The only hope for successful results from the essa rested in the states agencys ability to craft guidance that is meaningful to individual state and district contexts. Finally, i am proud of the progress that my district has made over the last four years he despite insufficient state funding and ever increasing student needs. The current supplement not supplant regulations focused on positions not funding have helped to make that possible. Dmps is becoming model for urban education in the United States. The proposed essa regulations will force us to dissome of the most Effective SchoolReform Efforts in the country and threaten progress ofour nations most disadvantaged students. We can do better if essa regulations align with the letter and spirit of the statute itself. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the new regulations with you. Thank you, dr. Ahart. Dr. Gordon. Thank you. Chairman alexander, Ranking Member murray and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. Im associate professor at georgetown universitys Mccourt School of Public Policy and Research Associate at the National Bureau of economic research. I conduct research on u. S. Education policies, School Finance and desegregation. In the course of my research on title i i analyzed finance data and also interviewed many state and district title i directors. I will describe how essa changes definition of supplement, not supplant and how the department of education proposes to regulate and discuss some unintended consequences from proposed regulation. The departments proposed rule as other witnessed testified is meant to support equity. This is laudable goal but when you look at the compliance incentives it generates and consider what districts might do in order to comply with the rule you could see how it could actually wind up hurting disadvantaged student both in title i schools and in nontitle i schools. Supplement not supplant is meant to insure districts do not reduce the amount of state and local money give 10 00 to title i school paired to what they would not give the school if they did not participate in time. I. This is Important Mission given past law and abuses. Under earlier versions of the essa, districts could comply with supplement not supplant based on what they bought with time. I dollars even if they g