Reporte. Next, hear from state and local education officials in a house education and the Workforce Committee hearing on the implementation of the every Student Succeeds act. The hearing runs two and a half hours. The committee on Education Workforce will come to order. Good morning. Welcome to todays full Committee Hearing. I thank our panel of witnesses and our Committee Members for joining todays discussion on the implementation of the every Student Succeeds act effort. As it can be considered a milestone for k12 policy because it was a monumental shift in the role of states and School Districts would have in the future of education. As it sought to achieve two specific goals for k12 education. Autonomy and accountability. School districts were given new independence when creating a k12 Education Program that works best for their own students. Ending a washington knows best approach to education. Additionally, as the specifically prohibited the federal government from influencing states adoption of particular standards. It also repeals federal mandates for teacher performance and protected a states right to opt out of federal Education Programs. Part of the goal for state and School Districts autonomy was to force washington to remain at arms length from states and School Districts when it comes to education. And rest assured that this committee will be watching to ensure that washington keeps its distance. While states and School Districts were given more autonomy and the law maintains provisions ensuring parents have transparent information about School Performance in states and districts and can hold schools accountable for delivering a high quality education to all students. As also included unprecedented restriction on the department of educations authority to take back the state and local flexibility guaranteed by the law. It has stripped away powers from the department of education such as the ability of the secretary of education to legislate through executive fiat or the ability of the departments bureaucrats to substitute their judgment for states. History made it clear that a topdown approach to k12 education did not serve students, parents, teachers, or the states well. And it directly addressed these shortcomings. Given the monumental shift in education policy its important we hear implementation is progressing. We know the law will not fully take effect until the coming school year and we will need time to assess its impact on schools and students. However, i look forward to hearing from todays witnesses about the progress state schools districts and the department of education are making. This committee has been keeping a close eye on this implementation process. Last year we held four hearings on implementation of e. S. S. A. And today will continue our discussion on e. S. S. A. s implementation. It was truly a change for k12 education and i do believe this bipartisan law delivers the proper balance of autonomy and accountability for parents and taxpayers while ensuring a limited federal role. This law has the ability to empower state and local leaders to change k12 education for the better. And that is why it is of utmost importance to this committee. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and members during todays hearing. With that, i yield to Ranking Member scott for his opening remark. Thank you, madam chair, for convening this mornings hearing on implementation of the every Student Succeeds act. Thank our witnesses for appearing today and look forward to their testimony. It is regrettable, madam chair, we are not hearing from the u. S. Department of education. Particularly considering media reports of the majoritys intention to critique its implementation of e. S. S. A. During todays proceedings. I, for one would greatly benefit from an open dialogue from the department on their implementation and for other matters. Chairwoman fox will remember i sent a letter urging secretary devos and agency heads to appear before the committee to discuss the administrations priorities. That request has not been fulfilled. I would like to take the opportunity gen again to ask th secretary or any other representative who can discuss the Administration Priorities to appear to engage in an open dialogue with this committee. This has been the law of the land for nearly 20 months. While that may seem like a long time in the life cycle of a law its really just the beginni beginning. States are only now undergoing the peer review and approval process after months of work ad midst the regrettable chaotic environment. As i said in february and march but it bears repeating when congress used the c. R. A. To block the regulation of title 1 score requirement and that was, unfortunate and counter to the bipartisan agreement in e. S. S. A. But this body did go forward with the c. R. A. And thats a reality that we have to work with. That lack of regulation, however, means increased subjectivity determining compliance with the laws requirement which makes oversight of this committee more important. It increased subjectivity without clarifying regulations is impairment in the departments early feedback on state plans submitted in may during the may submission window. Some plans components were praised by peer reviewers and one states plan while the same component was questioned as insufficient in another. All the while other violations of e. S. S. A. s equity requirements were overlooked by the department completely. Madam chair im disappointed that the media description of the reaction from some of our colleagues in the majority have characterized the Education Department state feedback plans as overreach. It is a difference between overreach and simply administering the program. We need to remember that e. S. S. A. Was not a blank check for states and districts and while the law for it in states and districts much flex sdinibf that flex sdinibility in the la. Congress designed the laws guardrails to protect the interests of the underserved students. While it contains important requirements that republicans and democrats all agreed to when we voted to it and they must be meaningful. It is not and never has been a free for all. It is the responsibility of the department as articulated by congress, to carefully scrutinize the quality of safelands and only approve those that meet the laws requirements. Even without regulations, the law is the law. And the law requires the secretary to review the plans, ask our questions and, if necessary, disapprove the plans in the interests of the students. And while as i just mentioned some of the content and overall inconsistency of the departments feedback may be problematic none of us should take issue with the department attempting to do its job. Feedback must be more not less consistent and more not less vigorous. As well hear today many state plans leave much to be desired either due to ambiguity, incompletely, or it is my hope the department will work with states including supervision of adequate guidance and Technical Assistance to improve the overall quality of the estate plans and insure implementation that honors the long civil rights focus of the e. S. E. A. Such implementation is only possible with the support and partnership with the federal government. It is not only the role of the department to support and monitor state efforts to comply with the role but also the role of congress to Fund Programs authorized by e. S. E. A. Despite promises to implement the Laws Congress continued the secretary and president proposed elimination of bedrock programs. Like title 2a to support teachers, 21st Century Learning Centers and cuts to other programs including an effective cut of nearly 600 million in title 1. The House Majority fiscal year 18 labor appropriation bill isnt as draconian as the president s request it fails to honor the agreement limiting title 2a siting afterSchool Programs and maintaining effective cuts to title 18 be felt at the local level. It would result in thousands of layoffs and inhibit local and state efforts to improve teacher and support. Defunding this program does not align with the bipartisan intent of the statute. Lastly trump proposes are cuts to medicaid would high standards as required by it. The situation would be even worse if the most recent repeal without a replace plan is enacted. Now, how effective can implementation be without funding . I know all too often the state and local education agencies face capacity challenges and hope to hear from todays witnesses about the negative impact of underfunding these programs on faithful implementation. In closing i remain concerned about many of the actions of the secretary and this administration concerning our nations students, for example, the recent rhetoric from the office of civil rights and offices of directive to ignore systemic data when they investigate alleged civil rights violations. The lack of Agency Capacity to carry out key components of the department including the absence of the deputy secretary. The rollback of protections for student borrowers, rescinding of protections for transgender students. The sledgehammerlike approach to deregulation without transparency, Decision Making of the department and the decision to cancel a Grant Program to award 12 million to local kalts to help them desegregate their schools. All point to a troubling pattern this pattern must not continue to implementation not out of Wishful Thinking or partisan spin but because it is in the law we enacted and needs to be enforced. It is clear it is a responsibility of the department to review and provide feedback on plans, make determination also of approvals or disapprovals based on compliance with the statute and partner including through enforcement activities with states and School Districts to support the laws implementation moving forward. It is the responsibility of states and districts to innovate within the gaushd guardrails of equity requirements that there may have been a change in administration but the law is the law and the federal role is clear. I hope this committee commits to a ro bust oversight of implementation moving forward to ensure it is responsibly fulfilled. Thank you, madam chair. I yield back. Thank you, mr. Scott. Pursuant to Committee Rule 7c all members will be permitted to submit written statements to be included in the permanent hearing record without objection the hearing record will remain open for 14 days to allow such statements and other extraneous material to be submitted for the official hearing record. Now turn to introductions of our distinguished witnesses. Miss nowicky, director of k12 eddati u. S. Government education office. Summit for the disart unified district in arizona. Phillip lovell from the alines of excellent education. Dr. Kerry wright from mississippi. I now ask our witnesses to raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony youre about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth . Let the record reflect the witnesses answered in the affirmative. Before i recognize each of you to provide your testimony, let me briefly explain our lighting system. We allow five minutes for each witness to provide testimony. When you begin the light in front of you will turn green. When one minute is left, the light are turn yellow. At the fiveminute mark the light will turn red and you should wrap up your testimony. Members will each have five minutes to ask questions. Now recognize miss nowicky for five minutes. Good morning, chairwoman and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss our new report on early observations on state accountability systems under e. S. A. E. As you well know it requires states to have accountability systems that meet certain requirements, grant states flexibility designing these systems. We focused our work on four areas of state accountability systems one determining longterm goals, two, developing Performance Indicators, three, dif rensiating schools and, four, identifying and assisting low performers because stake holder groups identified these as key components of accountability systems under it. And areas in which states are making changes. My remarks today will focus on two key areas. First, ill discuss stake holder views on its flexibility to redesign accountability systems second discuss next steps for the department of education in implementing e. S. E. A. In regards to my first point all Nine National stake holder groups with whom we spoke saw accountability provisions somewhat flexible. For example most praised the ability to define their own Performance Indicators. Most also indicated it strikes a good balance between flexibility and requirements. For example, one stake holder said it threads the needle very well between offering flexibility to Design Systems that meet state needs and requiring states to protect vulnerable populations. The extent to which states are changing their current systems varied. Some states are pleased with the systems they developed under their waivers and are continues down that path. But for states that see their current systems lacking some way or when stake holder consultation highlighted the need for significant change we were told this provides room follow statno states to consider innovative solutions. Ohio thing a california tailor systems in the systems i mentioned. I would like it highlight one example. To address the requirements to differentiate schools ohio plans to tweak its indicators to assess school and student performance. Some would pressure current performance while others would measure growth. Schools would receive a letter grade on each indicator as well as overall letter grade. Ohio officials felt this approach would provide detailed information on various elements of their Performance Systems as well as provide an easily understandable high level overview of performance. In california the plan is to use a colorcoded backboard to differentiate school and student performance on six indicators, each will measure current performance as well as growth overtime. Unlike ohio california does not plan to aggregate the indicators to an overall score. State officials said they chose that because they felt doing so can mask individual problem areas and also told us measuring current performance and growth for each indicator provides a more complete picture of performance. With regard to my second point, given current time lines the department of education remains focused providing assistance for states developing their plans and the review and approval process for plans. Moving forward, a key next step in implementation for the department to develop and implement state monitoring protocol. Although drafts were not available at the time of our review education officials said they planned to pilot protocols with eight or nine states in early 2018. The departments goal is to review all states within a three to fouryear cycle. Education officials also told us they are considering whether there is a need for Additional Guidance for states. During our review, most National Stake holder groups told us states could use guidance on a number of issues like how to identify and evaluate appropriate intervention. In cloegsing i hope this shines light on how states are assessing their systems. This is still in the early days and much work lies ahead for both states and the department of education before the prom mess of e. S. A. E. Can be realized. We look forward to working with you in your efforts of implementation of this important law. This completes my remarks and look forward to any questions you may have. Thank you. Dr. , you are recognized for five minutes. Would you turn on your microphone, please. Chairman fox, Ranking Member scott and members of the committee thank you for this opportunity to join you today. I am the superintendent of disar dsdz distri t district in arizona. I am here today because i believe it is critical we continue to Work Together to ensure the underserved population in our schools truly benefit from the educational promise that the every Student Succeeds act was designed to deliver. I thank you and the committee for convening this hearing. The house of representatives and senate are to be applauded for the hard work to craft this. Moving for the one size fits all of no child left behind restoring control of education to the states and local communities, although it may not be perfect, the power of the law is the flexibility it provides to states and schools. Allowing the focus to be on the individual student. I have the opportunity to talk with superintendents across the state of arizona and the nation about progress made in implementation. A Common Thread in those conversations that it has created an opportunity for stake holders to become more involved in goal setting and establishing account sdainability processes t of the plan requirement. It requires efforts to cult with and engage stake holders when developing a consolidated state plan, in arizona committees and advisory groups were established to provide input at various stages of the planned development. I had the privilege participating in some of these established subgroups and also attended Public Meetings designed to provide comment on proposed components in the plan. I ham not going to tell you that arizona has developed the ideal educational plan for our state. There is definitely room fo