Between salary level and teacher effectiveness. Does anybody want to defend that . There is no relationship between the expenditure of 80 of what we spend and effectiveness of teachers. Randy . I mean what i want of course theres a relationship. I mean, i wont speak for who is an amazing superintendent in des moines, but theres much evidence that there is relationship between the experience of teachers and the stability of schools and frankly part of what were trying to do in schools that are struggling is how do we nurture and secure Great Teachers to stay at those schools. So, obviously, there is both on a macro and a micro way, there are real both correlations here and things like that. I think what my colleague was saying is that the dollarfordollar piece that the that the department is proposing doesnt get you doesnt get you to the equity issues that you have spent your life, senator, fighting for. And you as well. And what im saying is whether the department, you know, ends up with this rule or doesnt end up with this rule, the reality is the way we are spending resources in this country im the first to say, maybe ill be the second or third because the two of you are here, the first to say we should pay teachers more in this country. Its a disgrace what we pay teachers in the United States. But how we pay them really is important. And i dont think we should be having people come here ten years from now and say there is no correlation between how we pay teachers and their effectiveness. And i think we need to Work Together to make sure thats not the case. Because then you cant make the case that we should have more resources. It worries me, you know, that we continue we come here, we tinker around the edges. And the reality is that if we dont have a solution to the kids that are showing up to kindergarten having heard 30 million fewer words, if kids dont have a choice of a school than any of us would send our kid and if Higher Education continues to continues to accelerate in its costs so that if youre in the bottom quartile of income earners it costs you 85 to go to college whereas if youre in the top income its 15 and you add it together the system of education is enforcing the income inequality gap that we have and thats an invitation from me to anybody on this panel to figure out how we go forward so that ten years from now were not sitting here having seeing these kinds of results and thats going to happen in america, not here. Well, i would just can i just comment on that, senator . I have seven seconds left. But please. I would just say, look, it took an extraordinary amount of effort for us all to kind of sorta barely come together to get this law over the finish line. It required a lot of engagement of a lot of stakeholders. Honestly, as we look to implement this law, were going to have to do the same thing, local district by local School District, state by state, and for us, those of us obviously who are very invested in seeing that equity outcome that we know is so important and consistent with our american values, you know, we believe that that flexibility is there, now that weve created this law. But it does not in my view undermine the importance of requiring appropriate, rigorous federal oversight. And striking that balance as we move forward is going to be the challenge and the charge for all of us. But i feel like in many ways our work has just begun as we look at how were going to try to do that with this flexibility in mind but i want a guarantee of strong, appropriate federal oversight as we move forward. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator bennet. Senator isakson . Whoop, senator murkowski, i made a mistake. Senator murkowski is next. Ive done that once before. I dont want to do it twice, excuse me. And, actually, mr. Chairman, i will defer to senator isakson as i just came back in, and im just finding out what has already been discussed. So, i will defer to senator isakson and thank you. Senator isakson. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, lisa, i appreciate that. Ranking member murray shes left, i guess. I want to thank the chairman and the Ranking Member on the essa and every Student Succeeds and the point were at today. I think it will be a great empowerment for the local boards and state boards of education to carry out the educational mandate in their state. Im the last remaining people that wrote no child left behind so i readily admit that. It was a great act for six years but it became an impediment as the ceiling got too low and people were put in nonperforming schools that shouldnt have been put in that category. But the thing i look at most with the assessment of children with disabilities, i married to a special ed teacher, and i worked hard on education and our kids with disabilities and learning disabilities to try to provide as much quality rules as we could and quality education. One of the things we had was a 1 1 exception i guess youd call it for kids with the kind of disability to have an alternative assessment rather than the mandated test under no child left behind. When we wrote every student succe succeed, it was overruled by the state board could not keep a local system from determining if a kid needed an individual assessment to ensure it was more flexibility so all of the 1 cap it really doesnt apply because the state and local education agencies i. D. E. A. Governs and the iep is the governing document to determine if the alternative assessment is necessary or not. Would you tell me how thats working and how you intend to carry it out in your respective systems . Well, the that was an issue of lots of discussion. Its a negotiated regulation. It is, its clearly the essa has changed the flipped the equation in that schools arent held to the 1 , states are. And we have an obligation to i think its an obligation as a state to make sure that we dont as a state exceed that 1 . In addition when we negotiated rules around that, there are there are rules that asking for a waiver for any particular district. We have to go through relatively rigorous process to make sure it doesnt happen. So its going to be about providing Technical Assistance to those districts that exceed 1 and well do that. Its our responsibility. In the past its been a local responsibility. But its clear that this committee determine that the state needs to be accountable for that, which we will be. Its something that weve we take very seriously. Yeah, thank you, senator. My district probably has a bigger challenge in meeting that 1 mark simply because of some of the specialized programming that we have for medically fragile and severely profoundly disabled students, but we always meet we always fall under that 1 mark. I think this is another example where its very difficult at the federal level to set benchmarks that translate into an equitable measure at the state and local level. So, one of the things that came up during regulations negotiations was just this issue. And theres certainly what seems to be a bit of a paradox there. The state cant go over 1 but individual districts can. I would argue that a district that a district could have a lower percentage of students with that alternative assessment than what i have in my district and be inappropriately testing more students than i am because of the nature of the programming that we offer. So, again, i think with good guidance from the state and the state offices, you know, working closely with the local education agencies, i dont see this as being particularly problematic. Well, thats good to hear because chairman alexander made a point that we got out of the National School board business and empowered the state and local School Boards and this is one of the areas where the federal agency decided to enforce its side of the 1 it would be negative to the local side of the states. We want you to be in control of education and thank you. Senator warren . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Weve spent a lot of time today talking about the financial accountability provisions in the new education law. And about the department of educations plans for enforcing these provisions. Now, weve heard concerns from witnesses who represent the professionals on the front lines implementing essa, but i want to make sure we have an opportunity to clarify a few key points regarding these provisions and why theyre in the law in the first place. Congress strengthened the financial accountability provisions in essa for a simple reason, to ensure that federal money is used to meet the purpose of title one. I dont have a poster but ill read it. To provide all children significant opportunity to receive a fair, equitable, and highquality education. And i underline all not just children in wealthy districts. So, ms. Weingarden, let me start there. Why do you believe its important for federal law to require equity and adequacy in terms of how education money is spent . Its sorry. Im having a ive been having a microphone problem all morning. Essa is a civil rights law, and it is about trying to make sure that theres opportunity for all children. So, if that is the case, equity is absolutely essential in order to get to excellence. But as i was saying to senator murray earlier, that that what were seeing locally is that we have to actually have a fight for adequacy, too. Because its not simply, you know, what is eke ququal. In order to level the Playing Field we actually have to give our vulnerable kids more. And as senator bennet said, we have to flip whats going on in this country. So, what the law does is it starts us on that path, but its at the end of that path and we need to be vigorous and rigorous in making sure that the kids who have had the least get the most. All right. Thank you. I agree. And let me followup on that by asking, do you believe that the department has the authority to ensure that states and districts do not divert state and local funds away from Public Schools in low income neighborhoods . So, i am very glad, senator warren, you asked the question in that way. Because the entire testimony weve been talking about increasing as opposed to diverting. I believe that the federal government and the department of education has the authority to ensure that theres no diversion. They have that in three different ways. Its not just the title one funding formulas that focus on concentration of poverty. And i think dr. Gordon is probably better at this than i would ever be. But its the maintenance of effort issues provisions and the s s provisions as was clarified several months beforehand. They have that authority and need it and part of what were concerned about is making sure that its not overreach so that they can actually do their job. Good. Well, then, let me turn to that part of it. They have the authority but how can the department enforce these provisions in a manner that doesnt result in the unintended consequences that you and others have discussed . So, that is a really, you know, that frankly should have been what was the what consumed the time of the negreg committee with all due respect. As janet had said earlier, this is a very complicated law, and there is a lot of complicated factors because it is very much a law that is about human behavior. And about lots of different multiple parts as many of the senators and many of the witnesses have talked about. The law provides some very powerful new provisions including transparency. And that transparency provision, as dr. Gordon earlier said, can be over methodology not just over resources. So, we need to actually see what the funding levels are. We need to see how those transparency provisions operate. That can be the first set of enforcement processes. And then after that, one looks at what you do next. But right now, to move to something that some one size fits all Enforcement Mechanisms thats not even allowed by the law seems like seems not wise. All right, not in the right direction. Thank you. And i will ask more on questions for the record. But financial accountability is about making sure that federal dollars are used to make sure that the money goes to the children who need it most. There are legitimate disagreements over how the department of education can best enforce financial accountability provisions but these are not disputes over whether those accountability provisions should be enforced or whether the department of education has the power to enforce those provisions. On that issue, i believe that the democrats and the teachers are in very strong agreement. Republicans, on the other hand, seem to be arguing that financial accountability provisions of the law should simply be ignored. The Department Needs to figure out how to enforce financial accountability in a way that doesnt have unintended consequences that disrupt schools. It is critical that the Department Listen to our teachers and to our school leaders, but ignoring accountability provisions is not an option. Financial accountability is essential to ensure that states and districts actually give our teachers the resources they need to do their jobs and that the states and districts use federal money to help our most vulnerable kids get a decent education. That is the law. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator warren. I would like to say to the witnesses that i have an unavoidable conflict at 11 40, and i will need to leave. But senator cassidys agreed to chair the remainder of the hearing, and i want to thank each of you for coming and for your excellent written testimony and for what youve said this morning. Senator murkowski. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you all for the discussion this morning. Very important on a lot of different levels. I come from a state where we spend a lot of money per pupil on our students, and yet the outcomes are not consistent throughout. Most particularly in our rural areas. Back in 2007 a case was heard before our state Supreme Court brought by stakeholders in three rural districts, and this was based on the concern that these districts were low performing because of a lack of funding equity. And considerable deliberation, longterm fact finding, but the judge came back, and he said the problem wasnt money. Because each rural district got about the same per pupil. But what they were seeing were, again, very different outcomes among them and among the individual schools. And what the judge found was that the issue was the degree of state support and its effectiveness within different communities or perhaps lack therefore within the communities. So, it was local support for schools. It was Community School relationships. It was effective and cultural relevant curriculum and teacher effectiveness. The data really demonstrated that this was what mattered here. Not that money doesnt matter. You have to have the money in order to do these things. But the judge back in 2007 denied the move for more money and ruled that what the state needed to provide was more effective state support. And then back in 2012 there was a settlement, because there was still an argument about whether or not adequate Financial Funding was being provided. So, in 2012 we see a settlement where the department of education and the state agreed to create programs to support prek, targeted resources grants, Teacher Retention grants, exit exam remediation. But it went specifically to the level of support that could be made available to these respective districts, rather than a dollarfordollar comparison. So, i questions id thrguess i anyone here on the panel. I noted, ms. Garcia, i wasnt here when you made the comment, but you apparently made a comment that we want to measure Actual Service and supports, not just the dollars. So, can you all comment on this situation in alaska and what our states courts found. Well, i want to begin by saying i was a utah teacher, but i was a fairbanks, alaska, student. I want to tell you that the best Teaching Assignment i ever had was the salt lake homeless homeless shelter, because the surrounding support that i had as the teacher that the district placed there, there were social workers that worked with the family. There was a health clinic, there was a dentist that came in every two weeks, the nutrition programs that they had, i was never alone. You had the support i needed as the professional who could deal with sometimes Mental Health issues that that family had. So i understand when you say its you do need every school needs the technology, the textbooks, the facility. You need the stuff, but you also need to deal with the reality of that childs life, and some children come to us with so many more needs that arent met in their home, in their community. They come from homes where they dont have disposable income sometimes to take a child to the dentist. So that child walks into our classroom in pain women we have to do something about it, whether weve been given the presources or not. So for me it is more than counting the dollars. The dollars are important, but you also have to say how creative can i be in seeing what kind of service and supports . What kind of Community Organizations are out there that can help me . And in utah were the lowest per pupil funded School District in the nation. We can stretch a dollar until you can see through it. We are the most creative educators on the planet. Give us more money, that would be nice, but whatever we have given, we try and leverage that into something more meaningful in supporting those children. Thats why we want to say which service . Which supports, which programs . It may cost a Different Number of dollars in this community than in this community, but for instance i keep using on support as on how can we make sure on you kids on graduate from high school having already earned College Credit . What would that look like . It might look like Something Different if youre in nome than in anchorage, where you have a university right there, and another might look like something online, but what we want is that power if of professionals working in collaboration in each community to design something that makes sense for tha community. If what youre measuring is, do you have the ability do these children have the opportunity to earn College Credit before they g