[Senate Hearing 114-767]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-767
ESSA IMPLEMENTATION: PERSPECTIVES FROM EDUCATION STAKEHOLDERS
=======================================================================
HEARING
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION,
LABOR, AND PENSIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
EXAMINING EVERY STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT IMPLEMENTATION, FOCUSING ON
PERSPECTIVES FROM EDUCATION STAKEHOLDERS
__________
MAY 18, 2016
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
30-069 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee, Chairman
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming PATTY MURRAY, Washington
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia BERNARD SANDERS (I), Vermont
RAND PAUL, Kentucky ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania
SUSAN COLLINS, Maine AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado
MARK KIRK, Illinois SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
TIM SCOTT, South Carolina TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
BILL CASSIDY, M.D., Louisiana
David P. Cleary, Republican Staff Director
Lindsey Ward Seidman, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Evan Schatz, Minority Staff Director
John Righter, Minority Deputy Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 2016
Page
Committee Members
Alexander, Hon. Lamar, Chairman, Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions, opening statement......................... 1
Murray, Hon. Patty, a U.S. Senator from the State of Washington.. 3
Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah...... 5
Enzi, Hon. Michael B., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming.. 46
Bennet, Hon. Michael F., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Colorado....................................................... 47
Isakson, Hon. Johnny, a U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia... 49
Warren, Hon. Elizabeth, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Massachusetts.................................................. 51
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska.... 53
Casey, Hon. Robert P., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Pennsylvania................................................... 55
Cassidy, Hon. Bill, a U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana... 56
Murphy, Hon. Christopher, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Connecticut.................................................... 58
Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
Island......................................................... 60
Witnesses
Garcia, Lily Eskelsen, President, National Education Association,
Washington, DC................................................. 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Weingarten, Randi, J.D., President, American Federation of
Teachers, AFL-CIO, Washington, DC.............................. 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Evers, Tony, Ph.D., State Superintendent of Public Instruction,
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Madison, WI........ 14
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Ahart, Thomas, Ed.D, Superintendent, Des Moines Public Schools,
Des Moines, IA................................................. 17
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Gordon, Nora, Ph.D., Associate Professor, McCourt School of
Public Policy, Georgetown University, Washington, DC........... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Marshall, Denise, Executive Director, Council of Parent Attorneys
and Advocates, Towson, MD...................................... 30
Prepared statement........................................... 32
Murguia, Janet, J.D., President and CEO, National Council of La
Raza, Washington, DC........................................... 37
Prepared statement........................................... 39
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc.
Response by Lily Eskelsen Garcia to questions of:
Senator Collins.......................................... 63
Senator Sanders.......................................... 64
Senator Whitehouse....................................... 69
(iii)
Response by Randy Weingarten, J.D., to questions of:
Senator Burr............................................. 70
Senator Collins.......................................... 71
Senator Sanders.......................................... 72
Senator Whitehouse....................................... 75
Response by Tony Evers, Ph.D., to questions of:
Senator Enzi............................................. 76
Senator Collins.......................................... 77
Senator Sanders.......................................... 78
Senator Whitehouse....................................... 83
Response by Thomas Ahart, Ed.D., to questions of:
Chairman Alexander....................................... 84
Senator Collins.......................................... 85
Senator Sanders.......................................... 86
Senator Whitehouse....................................... 90
Response by Nora Gordon, Ph.D. to questions of:
Chairman Alexander....................................... 92
Senator Sanders.......................................... 92
Senator Whitehouse....................................... 93
Response by Denise Marshall to questions of:
Senator Collins.......................................... 95
Senator Sanders.......................................... 95
Senator Whitehouse....................................... 102
Response by Janet Murguia, J.D., to questions of:
Senator Collins.......................................... 103
Senator Sanders.......................................... 104
Senator Whitehouse....................................... 107
ESSA IMPLEMENTATION: PERSPECTIVES FROM EDUCATION STAKEHOLDERS
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 2016
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room
SD-430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lamar Alexander,
chairman of the committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Alexander, Murray, Enzi, Burr, Isakson,
Murkowski, Scott, Hatch, Cassidy, Casey, Franken, Bennet,
Whitehouse, Murphy, and Warren.
Opening Statement of Senator Alexander
The Chairman. The Senate Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions will please come to order. Senator Murray
and I will each have an opening statement. Then we'll introduce
our witnesses, and Senators will have 5 minutes of questions
each.
I'm delighted to have the witnesses here. This is an
extraordinary group of individuals with a broad perspective
about children in elementary and secondary education, and we
welcome your comments on how we implement the new
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
This is our third of six hearings to discuss the
implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act, which the
President signed in December. It is the second opportunity for
this committee to hear from the States, school districts,
teachers, principals, and others that helped us pass this
overwhelmingly bipartisan law and are today working together to
implement it in a way that's consistent with congressional
intent.
I want to focus my remarks on the administration's proposed
supplement not supplant regulation. This is the very first
opportunity the administration has to write regulations on our
new law. In my view, they earned an F. The reason for that is
that the regulation violates the law as implemented since 1970
and seeks to do it in a way that is specifically prohibited in
the new law.
In writing the new law last year, Congress debated and
ultimately chose to leave unchanged a provision in the law
referred to as comparability. That's section 1605. This
provision says school districts have to provide at least
comparable services with State and local funding to title I
schools and non-title I schools. But the law plainly states
that school districts shall not include teacher pay when they
measure spending for purposes of comparability. That's been the
law since 1970. We didn't change it last year.
There is an entirely separate provision, known as
supplement not supplant that's intended to keep local school
districts from using Federal title I dollars as a replacement
for State and local dollars in low-income schools. What the
Department's proposed supplement not supplant regulation
attempts to do is to change comparability by writing a new
regulation governing supplement not supplant.
In other words, their proposal would force school districts
to include teacher salaries in how they measure their State and
local spending, and would require that State and local spending
in each title I school be at least equal to the average spent
in non-title I schools. The effect of this would be to violate
the law as implemented since 1970, section 1605. So the
administration may get an A for cleverness, but an F for
following the law, in my opinion.
The negotiated rulemaking committee couldn't agree on the
proposal, and at least one member, Tony Evers, a witness here
today, said that, ``congressional intent isn't necessarily
being followed here.'' Last week, the nonpartisan Congressional
Research Service said the same thing.
CRS issued a report that said, ``The Department's
interpretation appears to go beyond what would be required
under a plain language reading of the statute.'' CRS found that
the proposed supplement not supplant regulations, ``appear to
directly conflict,'' with statutory language that, ``seems to
place clear limits on the Department's authority and thus
raises significant doubts about the Department's legal basis
for proposed regulations.''
Today, I am looking forward to hearing from witnesses
whether what I have been hearing from principals, teachers, and
education leaders across the country is true. Here's what I've
been hearing:
No. 1, that the Department's proposed regulation could turn
upside down the funding formulas of almost all the State and
local school systems across the country.
Most States and local districts allocate K through 12
funding to schools based on staffing ratios. This often results
in different amounts going to different schools in the same
district because teacher salaries vary from school to school
for reasons having nothing to do with a school's participation
in title I. Instead, salaries vary because of teacher
experience, merit pay, or the subject or grade level they
teach.
No. 2, I've been hearing that the proposed regulation could
effectively require wholesale transfers of teachers and the
breaking of collective bargaining agreements.
No. 3, I've been hearing that school districts won't
receive enough funds to comply with the proposed regulation.
No. 4, that students could be forced to change schools.
No. 5, that the proposed regulation could increase the
segregation of low-income and high-income students.
And, No. 6, that it could require States and local school
districts to move back to the burdensome practice of detailing
every individual cost on which they spend money to provide a
basic educational program to all students, which is exactly
what we were trying to free States and districts from when we
passed the law.
According to the Council of Great City Schools, the
proposed regulation would cost $3.9 billion a year just for
their 69 urban school systems to eliminate the differences in
spending between schools. What the Department has done for the
first time is try to put together the two major provisions of
the law that have always been separate.
On comparability, which is the first one, members of this
committee discussed and debated changing this provision. We
discussed it at great length over the past 6 years. Senator
Bennet of Colorado, who has lots of experience with this, had
one proposal. I had another. We ultimately decided not to make
changes in comparability.
Instead, we included more transparency in the form of
public reporting, on the amount districts are spending on each
student, including teacher salaries, so that parents and
teachers know how much money is being spent and can make their
own decisions about what to do, rather than the Federal
Government mandating it be used in comparability calculations.
Then on the second provision in the law, on supplement not
supplant, we addressed this provision and made changes with an
effort to simplify the law, not make it more complicated. By no
stretch of the imagination did we intend--does any of the
language in the law say that supplement not supplant may be
used to modify the comparability provision. In fact, we
specifically prohibited that.
We prohibited, expressly, the Secretary from requiring
local school districts to identify individual costs or services
as supplemental. We prohibited the Secretary from prescribing
any specific methodology that districts use to distribute State
and local funds. And, most importantly, we prohibited the
Secretary from requiring a State, local school district, or
school to equalize spending.
The proposed regulation is nothing less than a brazen
effort to deliberately ignore a law that passed the Senate 85
to 15, passed the House 359 to 64, and was signed by the
President. No one has to guess what the law says. As the
Congressional Research Service says, we can just read its plain
language. And if the administration can't follow language on
this, it raises grave questions about what we might expect from
future regulations.
Senator Murray.
Opening Statement of Senator Murray
Senator Murray. Thank you, Chairman Alexander, for holding
this hearing. I really appreciate all of our witnesses for
taking the time to be here with us today.
Last year, Chairman Alexander and I worked together on
legislation to fix No Child Left Behind. We both agreed--in
fact, nearly everyone across the country agreed--that the law
had been badly broken. I'm proud that we were able to break
through that partisan gridlock in Congress, find common ground,
and pass the Every Student Succeeds Act with strong bipartisan
support.
At its heart, the Nation's primary elementary and secondary
education law is a civil rights law. And it is in that spirit
that I, along with my colleagues, worked to help make sure all
students will have access to a quality education, regardless of
where they live, how they learn, or how much money their
parents make. Now that our law is on the books, I am committed
to making sure it helps our students and our parents and our
teachers and our schools in my home State and across the
country.
As a reminder, here's what our education law does. The
Every Student Succeeds Act gives States more flexibility. But
it also includes strong Federal guardrails for States as they
design their accountability systems. It preserves the
Department's role to implement and enforce the law's Federal
requirements. It also reduces reliance on high-stakes testing.
And it makes significant new investments to improve and expand
access to preschool for our Nation's youngest learners, to name
just a few provisions in the law.
Right now, the Department of Education and States are
taking this law from legislative text to action steps. While
the Department goes through this process and as States develop
new systems and policies, I will continue to closely monitor
several issues to make sure our law lives up to its intent to
provide all students with a high-quality education.
I expect the Department to use its full authority under the
Every Student Succeeds Act to hold schools and States
accountable. While we were writing this law, we were deliberate
in granting the Department the authority to regulate on the law
and hold schools and States accountable for education. That
includes things such as making sure States and districts take
action every year to improve student achievement in any school
that has groups of students who are struggling.
I will be taking a close look at any guidance or
regulations from the Department for school intervention and
supports. Those things will be critical to helping low-
performing schools improve. One important part of holding
schools and States accountable for educating every child is
fiscal accountability.
I hear from teachers and principals in my home State of
Washington about how important Federal funding is to supporting
their work. We need to make sure Federal investments in
education support State and local resources and do not simply
replace them. The regulation, known as supplement not supplant,
is an important fiscal accountability measure, and it is
important to get this right.
Many stakeholders, including teachers, administrators, and
civil rights groups have provided thoughts on how to regulate
in this area. I hope that as the process moves forward, the
Department will continue to work with these groups on this
issue.
Collaboration will be critical, not just for one particular
regulation or another, but throughout the process to implement
the Every Student Succeeds Act. Getting input from teachers,
civil rights groups, parents, and many more will be essential
in making sure the law works in the coming months and years.
I've been frustrated to hear from many stakeholders that
they don't feel like they have a seat at the table as their
States work on implementation. That includes teachers who
aren't receiving time off of work to be part of State planning
sessions and parents who can't attend meetings held during the
workday.
I, along with Ranking Member Bobby Scott in the House, have
asked the Department to help States and districts eliminate the
systemic barriers that stakeholders face in getting involved in
the implementation process. I'll continue to encourage
stakeholders like all of those represented here today and many
more to stay active and make their voices heard throughout the
implementation process.
It is up to all of us to uphold the legacy and promise of
our Nation's primary education law so it works for all
students. I look forward to hearing from everyone today on how
we can make sure that this law helps provide a good education
for every child.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murray, and thanks to you
and the other members of the committee for your hard work on
this legislation.
I am pleased to welcome seven witnesses to our hearing
today. Thank you to each of you for coming and for all you've
done to help improve the education of the Nation's children.
Senator Hatch, a former chairman of this committee, will
now introduce our first witness, who is Ms. Lily Eskelsen
Garcia, President of the National Education Association.
Senator Hatch.
Statement of Senator Hatch
Senator Hatch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this
opportunity, and I'm pleased to be here today and grateful that
we could be joined by a true leader in education policy, Lily
Eskelsen Garcia. I consider myself lucky to know Lily and even
luckier to call her a friend. It's truly an honor to introduce
her to the committee today.
Ms. Eskelsen Garcia has had a remarkable path in education.
She began her career as a cafeteria worker and later became an
aide to a special education teacher. And as a young mother, she
worked her way through the University of Utah where she
graduated magna cum laude with a bachelor's degree in
elementary education and later earned a master's degree in
instructional technology.
Ms. Eskelsen Garcia eventually taught fourth, fifth, and
sixth grades at Orchard Elementary in the Granite School
District in Utah. While in Utah, she also worked with homeless
children in a single classroom, mentored student teachers, and
acted as a peer assistant team leader. After demonstrating her
effectiveness in the classroom, Ms. Eskelsen Garcia was named
Utah Teacher of the Year in 1989.
Ms. Eskelsen Garcia's passion for education extended beyond
the classroom and eventually led her to a career in
policymaking. She served as president of the Utah Education
Association before joining the National Education Association,
where she has served as a leader since 1996.
In 2014, she was elected to serve as the president of the
NEA. She was instrumental in helping Congress pass the Every
Student Succeeds Act, and I am sure she will be equally helpful
as we work to implement this groundbreaking legislation.
ESSA represents a momentous opportunity for students and
teachers alike by removing many of the overbearing Federal
policies that stifled classroom instruction in the past. This
new law allows educators more room to innovate and tailor their
teaching to the needs of individual students. We are grateful
for the indispensable role Ms. Eskelsen Garcia played in
helping this reform become a reality.
Ms. Eskelsen Garcia, we really welcome you to today's
hearing and look forward to your guidance on the questions at
hand. And I just want to personally testify how much I
appreciate what you've done with your life. Thank you so much.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Hatch.
I'll now introduce the other witnesses, and then beginning
with Ms. Eskelsen Garcia, we'll ask you each to summarize your
views, if you can, in about 5 minutes, and that will leave time
for Senators to engage in a conversation and ask questions.
Our second witness is Ms. Randi Weingarten. Ms. Weingarten
is the current president of the American Federation of Teachers
which represents 1.6 million members nationwide. Prior to that,
she served for 12 years as president of the United Federation
of Teachers, AFT Local 2.
Our third witness is Dr. Tony Evers. We're getting
accustomed to seeing him here. Welcome, Dr. Evers. He is the
Wisconsin State Superintendent of Public Instruction. He serves
as president of the Board of the Council of Chief State School
Officers and served on the Department of Education's recent
negotiated rulemaking panel for regulations on the Every
Student Succeeds Act.
Our fourth witness is Dr. Thomas Ahart. He is the
superintendent of Des Moines Public Schools in Iowa. He also
served on the Department of Education's recent negotiated
rulemaking panel for regulations on the Every Student Succeeds
Act.
Our fifth witness, Dr. Nora Gordon, is associate professor
in the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown
University. Her research focuses on the economics of education
and fiscal federalism.
Next we'll hear from Ms. Denise Marshall. Ms. Marshall
serves as executive director for the Council of Parent
Attorneys and Advocates. She has over 30 years of experience
working and advocating in the field of disabilities.
Our final witness is Ms. Janet Murguia. She is president
and chief executive officer of the National Council of La Raza.
She advocates for the Latino community in areas including
education, workforce, and civic engagement.
Thank you each for being here.
Ms. Eskelsen Garcia.
STATEMENT OF LILY ESKELSEN GARCIA, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Eskelsen Garcia. Thank you so much.
And thank you, Senator Hatch. I appreciate that
introduction.
I am president of the 3 million member National Education
Association. But more important than that, I am a sixth grade
teacher, and not only that. I'm a really, really good sixth
grade teacher. I give myself goose bumps. I'm amazing.
I have spent the last 13 years fighting against what I saw
as a cloud of test and punish that was hanging over every
public school in the United States of America, and I cried for
joy the entire day that the President signed the new law, Every
Student Succeeds. That day would not have come without the
leadership of Senator Alexander and Senator Murray, and I just
want to start by thanking you and thanking all of your
colleagues for making that day possible.
I have about 14 hours worth of really good advice to give
you. They told me I have 5 minutes, so I will talk really,
really fast.
No. 1--and I cannot stress this enough--I am a really good
teacher. You should really listen to me. I mention that because
I remember I was in my classroom at the Salt Lake homeless
shelter, in a one-room classroom, a K-6 classroom, in the
shelter when Congress was debating the passage of this thing
called No Child Left Behind. I just was beside myself thinking,
``Wait a minute. One hundred percent of our kids are going to
hit a cut score on a standardized test? That's not even
possible.''
I remember thinking, ``Did anyone stop to ask a working
classroom teacher how we made out a report card, how we
measured success? Did anyone stop to ask a working classroom
teacher what might be the unintended consequences of high-
stakes testing on our most vulnerable students, like the
students I was teaching?''
For me, a huge part--and the first thing I want to talk
about--is the fact that in this new law, States and districts
must engage the people who know the names of the students. It
says over and over again that you have to include the
educator's voice in developing that dashboard of indicators and
how we're going to be measuring student success.
Some folks in States are going to respect that, and some
folks aren't. We're already hearing back where someone--an
educator is asked to sit on a committee, but they meet during
the school day, and they don't provide a substitute teacher. Or
you put an educator on a committee, and she has to drive 3
hours to the meeting, and there's no reimbursement for her gas
to get to the meeting.
We know that it's possible to do it right. We're hearing
good things from places like Oregon. The Oregon Education
Association knocked at the door, and folks on the State level
said come on in, and they're at the table, and they're making
amazing things happen very collaboratively. Then you go to New
Mexico, where our NEA New Mexico affiliate knocked on the door,
and the door was slammed in their faces, and they said, ``We
don't need you.''
So we're going to have this implemented in very different
ways across the country. We have so much hope that if our
voices are in the room, we will get something really good out
of this much better law, and we hope that you will continue to
encourage those State leaders to abide by the law you passed
and welcome the educators to the table.
No. 2, you cannot possibly imagine how excited we are about
better data, better information, aside from that one-size-fits-
all standardized test, to have that dashboard of indicators we
believe is going to be the game changer for our students. The
original 1965 ESEA did give school districts some important
resources for title I schools and other programs to help fill
that resource gap that was so obvious among schools that had so
much and schools that had so little, depending on what zip code
you were in. But it was never meant to take over the primary
responsibility of State and local government for running our
schools.
The Federal Government's role in ESSA is still to assist.
But what's new and what's completely appropriate for the
Federal Government is to require that we have better data, more
complete data, that transparency that the community deserves so
everyone can see whether all students have that equal
opportunity to learn, and where it is unequal, what the State
and the local school district plan to do about it. That needs
to be on the table.
We're thrilled that everyone seems to be using the word,
equity. That was what we feel like we got away from, looking at
the equitable resources that are given our most vulnerable
students. But, finally, I do want to say that even though we're
all using that word, Governors, the Department of Education,
the unions, and certainly Congress in putting it in the law,
we're defining it sometimes in very different ways.
We think you did a very good thing in spelling out in the
law that school districts have flexibility in how they're going
to report what services are being provided to our students. You
rejected that continuation of a one-size-fits-all number; that
there's only one way to judge this. We think it's very good,
and so we're very worried at the proposals of the Department of
Education that appear to take away that flexibility.
I need to say this very clearly. We support the new
reporting element that requires all public schools to report
their actual per-pupil expenditures, local, State, and Federal,
disaggregated by personnel and non-personnel. That's an
improvement. That gives better transparency.
But we also know that we're seeing popping up around the
country some very creative programs in giving services to
students. If all you're doing is counting those specific
dollars spent by education departments, you're 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 and Girls Club.
The Chairman. Excuse me for interrupting, but I want to
make sure everyone has their 5 minutes. Go ahead and wind up.
Ms. Eskelsen Garcia. Winding up right now. If you're just
counting dollars that a district makes in teacher placement
decisions based on the specific salary or benefits costs so
that things look--you're going to worry about things looking
equal instead of saying, ``Are we actually giving services to
our students?'' All we're saying is why in the world would you
want to cutoff reasonable flexibility that a district might
have in giving something creative and meaningful to our
students and discourage districts from finding those creative
solutions. We hope that you will make your intent crystal
clear.
In closing, I would just say we are ready, willing, and
able to find those creative solutions. We're excited about
being at the table, and we appreciate you giving us the chance
to show you what we can do.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Eskelsen Garcia follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lily Eskelsen Garcia
Thank you Chairman Alexander, Senator Murray, and members of the
committee for inviting me to join you today.
My name is Lily Eskelsen Garcia and I am an elementary school
teacher from the great State of Utah. I also have the honor and the
privilege of representing 3 million educators as president of the
National Education Association.
Classroom educators, across the country, welcome the Every Students
Succeeds Act (ESSA) as a critical juncture in education--a chance to
reduce and eliminate opportunity gaps and inject the expertise of
educators into decisions that impact teaching and learning in the
classroom. Much as we were committed to the passage of this law and
ending the era of test and punish, our members stand united on ensuring
that we make the best decisions for students as States and districts
move forward with the important work of implementation.
ESSA has already reinvigorated the national conversation about
equal opportunity for all our students, no matter what zip code they
live in. But that is not enough. I will focus today on what we must do
to fulfill ESSA's potential to be a game changer with regard to
accountability, State and local flexibility, and doing right by the
students most in need.
ESSA is a civil rights law, so the renewed focus on equity and
closing opportunity gaps is important. ESSA is also a major course
correction from the stifling Federal overreach of No Child Left
Behind--a critical opportunity for all stakeholders in education to
participate meaningfully in making the decisions at the State and
district level.
While we welcome this approach--and believe it is necessary--the
process of co-creating such plans through meaningful dialog will be
demanding and complicated. Stakeholder engagement and planning will
need to happen at the Federal, State, and district level
simultaneously, and will require really listening to the concerns of
different stakeholders. Everyone involved will need to stretch muscles
that haven't been used in quite some time if we are to arrive at
solutions that work for our students.
The undertaking will be hard but more than justified by the result:
advancing equity for all our students. For the first time, students'
access to opportunities and resources will be systematically tracked.
New State-developed accountability systems, which will be fully
implemented in the 2017-18 school year, must include at least one
indicator of school success or student support. Determining which
indicators to measure and capturing that data will push States to
identify and begin closing opportunity and resource gaps to the benefit
of all students--especially those that have been historically
underserved. Parents, teachers, and other stakeholders can use the
indicators as an additional tool to advocate for change at the State
and local level.
ESSA also empowers educators and students to return their focus to
teaching and learning in the classroom--it encourages States and
districts to right-size the amount of testing and explore alternatives
to standardized tests. As an educator, I believe that every student
deserves access to a curriculum that is broad and rich in content--not
just reading and math, but the arts, physical education, civics, hands-
on career and technical education, and more.
Making that a reality is easier said than done, of course. That is
where ESSA comes into play, and why implementing the new law as
Congress intended is so important.
Resources are key and there are only so many of them. Federal
dollars are intended to ``supplement, not supplant'' the use of State
and local dollars for the students most in need--the reason the Federal
Government got involved in public education in the first place.
However, we continue to have concerns with the proposal the U.S.
Department of Education offered during the negotiated rulemaking
process. Districts should have the flexibility to develop a methodology
that shows Federal dollars are supplemental to their efforts. At the
same time, we want to ensure that students are getting access to the
services and programs they need, regardless of their zip code.
Therefore we strongly support the new reporting element that will
require all public schools to report actual per pupil expenditures of
Federal, State and local funds (disaggregated by personnel and non-
personnel). This is a significant improvement that will provide the
transparency that was lacking under NCLB.
At this critical juncture, the devil is in the details. Those
details are complex, as is our mission: developing new State
accountability systems built around multiple measures, not just
standardized test scores. For ESSA to fulfill its potential to be a
game changer for students, the new accountability systems must be
developed collaboratively, with the input of all stakeholders. That
approach is the only way to ensure stakeholders' commitment and buy-in.
Educators must have a seat at the table, along with parents and
other stakeholders. Together, we will determine key elements of the new
accountability systems--how much tests count, what tests could be
eliminated, and which indicators of student or school support to use.
Together, we will determine who conducts school needs assessments, what
interventions look like, and more.
Other concerns include some of the U.S. Department of Education's
regulatory proposals--those we have already seen and what they imply
for those to come. Attempts to circumvent congressional intent could
create ripples that extend far beyond the regulations to which they
pertain--specifically, a chilling effect that discourages States and
districts from thinking creatively or being proactive. That, in turn,
could undermine the promising new paradigm that ESSA represents.
Settling these issues will take time and demand patience. That is
to be expected, given the far-reaching nature of the changes we are
making and the complexity of the issues we are addressing. In Oregon,
for example, there has been a multi-year collaborative dialog on what
testing should look like for students and how test results should be
used. Several States are setting up task forces and listening sessions.
The best conversations revolve around this central question: What type
of schools do we want for our students?
These experiences have taught us a lot about what it means to
involve stakeholders in meaningful ways, the benefits as well as the
barriers. We know that including educators at the decisionmaking table
is critical--it is the voice of classroom practitioners that has been
missing for the last 14 years. It is also critical for the educators at
the table to get the respect and buy-in from other educators in the
State. In addition, we need to make sure that States and districts are
doing everything in their power to reduce barriers to educators'
participation in the process--for example, ensuring that they are given
release time and helping to cover their travel expenses. We want to
express our appreciation for the letter that Senator Murray and
Representative Scott sent last week to Secretary King raising these
very issues.
We also want to keep the pressure on the way-too-many States that
are telling their educators nothing needs to change as a result of
ESSA. This is not what anyone had in mind when ESSA was signed into
law.
Those who know our students best--their parents and their
educators--must have a meaningful say in what schools, districts and
States are held accountable. We need to learn from the past, not repeat
mistakes such as No Child Left Behind's one-size-fits-all approach to
accountability, the inequities of Race to the Top, or tying teacher
evaluations to poorly designed tests that are neither valid nor
reliable.
ESSA has opened window to a new direction for students and schools.
While that path is challenging, with challenge comes opportunity--and
responsibility.
For ESSA to become the game changer Congress intended it to be, the
Department of Education, States, and school districts must live up to
their end of the bargain. Educators and other stakeholders must stand
up, speak out, and advocate for their students. And all of us must
insist on keeping the focus where it belongs: on equity and opportunity
for all students, no matter what zip code they live in.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Weingarten.
STATEMENT OF RANDI WEINGARTEN, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Weingarten. Thank you. My name is Randi Weingarten. I
am President of the AFT, and it is my privilege to be here to
talk about our views on the implementation of ESSA. But I do
want to start where my colleague and friend, Lily Eskelsen
Garcia, started with as well, which is I cannot thank this
committee and, 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 DC to enact ESSA. We need to thank you over and over again
on that issue.
What I wanted to discuss was the promise of ESSA, but I'll
focus my comments on the regulatory process, particularly on
what the U.S. Department of Education has released so far on
ESSA's ``supplement, not supplant'' provisions and what we
anticipate will be released on accountability systems.
We at the AFT view these policy details through the lens of
whether they both work in America's classrooms and reflect the
voices of educators. I, particularly, today am speaking with
two decades of experience in the largest school district in the
United States where we actually had to deal and had to work
through and make sure equity mattered in terms of 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 on the
proposed supplement not supplant rules, the Education
Department demonstrated that it was neither listening to
stakeholders nor 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.
The pursuit of both equity and excellence for our children
is part of the AFT's DNA, and there are several ways to do
this. One is through full funding of title I, something we will
keep fighting for through this appropriations process. I would
suspect that almost anyone involved in education would be
fighting to level up spending rather than level down spending
so that schools currently spending the least could be made
whole.
In addition, ESSA continues important equity safeguards so
States cannot deny disadvantaged children the additional
funding that the Federal Government has provided to level the
playing field. That includes the maintenance of effort
provisions as well as the SNS provisions as well as the way in
which the title I formula is currently structured, all of which
we fought very hard for, as all of you know.
This is why I disagree with the Department's supplement,
not supplant proposal. The Department essentially, as Lily
said, wants to make dollar for dollar comparisons rather than
what happens right now. This is what that means in practical
terms. Right now, principals have a number of teachers they can
hire based on positions rather than an exact dollar amount they
can spend. If that changes, then a teacher's salary and
benefits 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 school's particular programmatic
focus is, not the needs of school children.
What will happen is that some schools will face cuts that
will compel them to make no-win choices about which teachers
they keep or they hire. Dollar for dollar comparisons--I can
talk about this for hours, because I've lived this. Dollar for
dollar comparisons in a district can even be thrown off by
something as simple as how many teachers in each school have
individual health coverage as opposed to family coverage, the
difference between $5,000 for coverage versus $20,000 for
coverage.
These types of unintended consequences are major
disruptions that have nothing to do with equity or opportunity.
When you force districts to count exact spending in a school,
their goals get lost in translation. We cannot equalize
spending that way.
Finally, we are concerned that the Education Department
will take the level of prescription it has 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 ESSA lies in the opportunity for States,
with broad stakeholder input, to create robust systems of
accountability, that we define how we measure learning so that
learning is really about learning, not simply math and English
test scores.
Thank you very much. I'm sorry I went over by 34 seconds.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Weingarten follows:]
Prepared Statement of Randi Weingarten
Good morning. My name is Randi Weingarten, and I am president of
the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). On behalf of the AFT's 1.6
million members, it is my privilege to be here today to represent our
views on the implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). I
will focus my comments today on the regulatory process, particularly on
what the U.S. Department of Education has released so far on ESSA's
supplement-not-supplant provisions and what we anticipate will be
released on accountability systems.
As Washington policymakers wrangle with the details of this law,
the AFT views these details--those sorted out in both last year's
legislative process and this year's regulatory process--through the
lens of whether they are workable in America's classrooms and reflect
the voices of educators. Senator Patty Murray and Representative Bobby
Scott recently reiterated this priority in a joint letter to the
Administration. The regulatory process is the process through which
ESSA enables States--informed by the collective wisdom of those who
help kids every day--to shape their education systems to create great
environments for teaching and learning, not testing, particularly for
disadvantaged children.
Unfortunately, in its first regulatory actions--on the proposed
supplement-not-supplant rules offered during negotiated rulemaking--the
Education Department did not demonstrate that it was either listening
to stakeholders or following the framework of the legislation. Instead,
by conflating supplement-not-supplant and comparability, the Department
is pursuing policy in rulemaking that was either rejected or barred in
the legislative process.
The AFT believes in both equity and excellence, and there are
several ways to accomplish this. One is through full funding of title
I, something we will keep fighting for through the appropriations
process. AFT members, and most people involved in the education of
children, would love to have a discussion about ``leveling up''
spending (rather than ``leveling down''), so that those schools
currently spending the least could be made whole.
When it comes to equity, ESSA continues important safeguards--
something we fought hard for as we fought against the portability
proposals. These include the existing supplement-not-supplant and the
maintenance-of-effort provisions. These protections are in place so
States cannot do a bait and switch to deny disadvantaged children the
additional funding that the Federal Government has provided to level
the playing field.
The policy details of supplement-not-supplant seem complicated, but
the basic ideas are simple: Federal education funding slated for needy
students should be provided in addition to, not instead of, State and
local dollars. We agree. In places like Detroit, for example, we would
be in so much better shape than we are now if the Federal Government
just stuck to ensuring that this basic provision was adhered to.
What makes supplement-not-supplant complicated is that the
Education Department is pursuing changes that it wanted, but didn't
get, in the law itself. When Congress passed ESSA, it made no changes
to the existing rules and regulations around comparability--a fiscal
requirement similar to supplement-not-supplant, though focused on
funding between schools. What the Department wants is a dollar-for-
dollar comparison between schools. It is trying to achieve in
regulations the policy it failed to get in legislation.
What would the draft regulations mean in practical terms? A lot.
Right now, principals have a number of teachers they can hire based on
positions, rather than a dollar amount they can spend. We don't want a
teacher's salary and benefits to keep him or her from getting hired,
just like we don't want a teacher's salary and benefits to force him or
her to be transferred.
Will schools have the latitude to make staffing decisions--like how
many experienced teachers they retain or how many new teachers they
hire--based on their own needs? Or will Federal policy force the
leveling down of funding, so some schools face budget cuts that compel
them to make no-win choices about which teachers to keep or hire?
Here are a couple of examples of how this can play out at the
district and school levels:
Sometimes schools expand, for example from K-5 to K-8. In
such cases, they generally hire new teachers to cover the expansion.
Other schools in the district shouldn't have their staffing cut so as
to average out with the school that has expanded.
Sometimes districts create specialized programs in one
school, such as a dual-immersion language program. By necessity, such
programs hire staff with specialized backgrounds or credentials--for
example, professionals who are new to teaching but whose backgrounds
and skills are particularly appropriate for the new program. Again,
schools with specialized programs should not have to ``level down'' the
amount spent on their programs to ensure equal spending across a
district.
Dollar-for-dollar comparisons in a district can even be
thrown off by something as simple as how many teachers in each school
have individual health insurance coverage rather than family coverage.
These types of unintended consequences are major disruptions that
have nothing to do with equity and opportunity. When you force
districts to count exact spending in a school, the goals get lost in
translation. We cannot equalize spending without creating winners and
losers; it will result in some schools having to give up resources,
services or staff in order for others to gain. That's neither equitable
nor sensible.
Comparable spending in schools has been a critical way to ensure
equity in school spending over the years. It makes sense that you'd
want districts to spend the same amount on all its kids--regardless of
whether they go to school in a rich neighborhood or a poor one.
But the goal is equitable, not equal, spending, and that's
something unions have spent decades bargaining for. That's why, when
the education law was being negotiated in Congress last year, the AFT
fought to make sure this standard of comparability was preserved. And
it's why we are so concerned about the attempt to legislate through the
regulatory process.
The legality of the proposed regulations is also in question. A
recent legal analysis by the Congressional Research Service found that
``a legal argument could be raised that ED exceeded its statutory
authority if it promulgates the proposed SNS rules in their current
form.''
What is perhaps most concerning about the proposed regulations? It
is that the Education Department will take the level of prescription it
has proposed for supplement-not-supplant to the upcoming regulations on
school accountability systems. This could strip the law of the
flexibility necessary to create accountability systems that envision
new ways to define and measure learning--ways that help the whole
child, as opposed to the current and far too restrictive and
counterproductive focus on test scores. The promise and opportunity of
ESSA was in the opportunity for States, with broad stakeholder input,
to create robust systems of accountability that measure school success
beyond reading and math test scores.
We are worried that the Department's actions on supplement-not-
supplant signal that it will try to restrict the weights that States
can put on different measures in their accountability systems, that it
will attempt to impose rules around the 95 percent participation
requirement that go well beyond the letter of the law, or that it will
very narrowly define terms such as ``significant'' or ``evidence-
based'' that were carefully negotiated by Congress to provide States
latitude to decide what is best.
It is apparent from ESSA's unprecedented prohibitions against the
secretary of education overreaching on policy that parents, communities
and educators are not interested in having highly prescribed rules and
mandates for preK-12 education from the Federal Government. And, as
evidenced by the persistence of the opt-out movement, this has not
changed since ESSA was enacted.
Frankly, this is not an auspicious beginning, and ESSA's
unprecedented prohibitions against overreaching by the Education
Department were intended to curb this type of action. Equally
concerning, the Department's actions run the risk of squandering all
the goodwill that ESSA created. Now is the time for the Department to
help and enable, not restrict and prescribe.
This is happening at the very time stakeholders are beginning the
process of developing these new education systems. The Education
Department's overreaching draft regulations, especially if they are a
harbinger of what is to come in the way of accountability, will
undermine the potential of ESSA before it ever has a chance to be
implemented.
I would like to thank Senator Alexander for remaining so vigilant
on this issue and working to make sure that ESSA is appropriately
implemented.
The Chairman. But it was an enthusiastic 34 seconds. Thank
you, Ms. Weingarten.
Dr. Evers.
STATEMENT OF TONY EVERS, Ph.D., STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTION, WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
MADISON, WI
Mr. Evers. Thank you, Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member
Murray and the members of the committee, for allowing me to
testify today. It's good to be back. I'm back again.
I highlighted in previous testimony before this committee,
State and local leaders are committed to making sure that all
kids achieve at the highest level. Under No Child Left Behind,
overly prescriptive Federal mandates left States and local
districts without the ability to tailor strategies to meet the
needs of their kids.
As a lifelong educator, I believe that we must learn from
our mistakes. We have the Every Student Succeeds Act which
gives us a chance to move our State and local education systems
forward in ways that are impactful. But in doing so, we have to
admit and recognize that ESSA is a landmark piece of civil
rights law and one that presents us with the opportunity to see
our challenges with new eyes in the hopes of finding solutions
that make a difference for kids.
Last week, I sent invitations to convene a primary advisory
group, the Wisconsin Equity and ESSA Stakeholder Council. To
identify members of this group, I reached out to national civil
rights organizations and groups that have not traditionally
focused exclusively on K through 12 issues. We have a joint
education related organization, parents, legislators, teachers,
and others, to advise on the State plan which will help
districts increase the opportunities for all kids.
I told prospective members of this council in their
invitation, we need a diversity of experience and expertise if
we are going to be successful in closing one of the Nation's
largest achievement gaps, and that is in the State of
Wisconsin. In addition to this council, Wisconsin's broader
outreach plan consists of three in-person facilitated listening
sessions and two virtual sessions. We will also use web-based
feedback for anyone in the State who wants to provide us with
information, and this information will be received and used to
inform the Equity Council as they convene.
I'm proud of the work we're 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, as has been said before, developed by
ESSA should be limited to providing clarity on otherwise
ambiguous or confusing areas, not implementing requirements
that were not envisioned by Congress.
Flexibility has been a central element of ESSA, because I
believe there is recognition that the States have very
different systems and supports for K through 12 education. The
flexibility currently provided in the law allows States to
focus on the most important and difficult work ahead in
supporting each and every student in the United States.
In contrast, the regulations the Department proposed during
a negotiated rulemaking process on supplement not supplant--
they were well intended. I will grant them that. But it would
have significant impacts on our students, drawing focus away
from student learning and service to unwieldy fiscal balancing
acts.
It is the responsibility of school leaders to put the best
teachers in front of the kids who need them the most. They
weigh qualifications, diversity, and skill sets in service to
kids. They contemplate optimal grade configurations, staffing
patterns, and facility needs, all with an eye toward 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 guarantee student access to high-
quality educators.
As a member of the negotiated rulemaking committee, I
understand the arguments on both sides of this issue. But I
also believe--and it is clear--that the proposed regulations on
supplement, not supplant exceed the Department's authority
under the law.
State and local schools absolutely have a responsibility to
their kids to examine current Federal funding and how it's
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 that they're reaching all
the people that make up their school community. But that type
of authentic discussion and problem solving simply cannot be
achieved through a Federal mandate.
I firmly believe that States should be held accountable for
their students' results. When it comes to both funding and
educational practice, the States are committed to using
additional 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.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Evers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tony Evers, Ph.D.
Thank you Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray, and members of
the committee for the opportunity to testify today. I also want to
thank you for your ongoing efforts to support the implementation of the
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). As States and local school districts
across the country develop strategies to close achievement gaps and
promote equity for our students under the new law, and the U.S.
Department of Education (Department) moves forward with the regulatory
and guidance process, it is important that States retain the renewed
flexibility that is the central element of the ESSA. Flexibility is
critical if we are to keep the focus on our students. This is the Every
Student Succeeds Act and it is aptly named. To be successful in
implementation, those of us closest to our students must be empowered
to do the work that is needed to ensure that every one of them has the
opportunity to graduate college- and career-ready.
As I highlighted in previous testimony before this committee, State
and local leaders are committed to achieving optimal results for all of
their students. Under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), overly prescriptive
Federal mandates on the overall design of statewide systems left States
and local districts without the ability to tailor school improvement
strategies to the unique needs of their schools and students. We should
not repeat these mistakes.
The ESSA is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation that
provides States with the opportunity to engage their citizens about the
importance of education. Part of that dialog needs to be how we measure
success. I firmly believe that States should be held accountable for
their student results. But as States begin to implement the law, we
must take into consideration the very different systems and supports
for K-12 education States across the Nation have in place. The
regulations the Department proposed during the negotiated rulemaking
process on supplement, not supplant, while well-intended, fail to
recognize the importance of those differences and would have
significant impacts on our students.
I encourage you to think about what the proposed supplement, not
supplant rule would mean for our kids. It is the job of school leaders
to ensure that the best teachers are in front of the kids who need them
the most. School leaders look at qualifications, diversity, and skill
sets. They contemplate optimal grade configurations, staffing patterns
and supports, and facility needs, all with an eye toward the best way
to increase student achievement for all students. School leaders will
not have the ability to make optimal decisions for kids with the
supplement, not supplant rule in effect as proposed during negotiated
rulemaking. Nor will kids be guaranteed access to a qualified educator
who has the skills and life experience necessary to fulfill their
needs. As it stands now, the proposed regulations would require States
to fund individual schools on a per-pupil basis and require State
education agencies to redirect existing staff in an attempt to build
capacity to monitor and enforce per-pupil expenditures.
School districts may be required to break contracts or force
placement of teachers, without regard to educational outcomes. This is
not good for kids and it will inhibit our ability to attract and retain
teachers. Districts may be forced to eliminate specialized and more
expensive programming in some schools such as career and technical
education, engineering, music, and art. Students may be reassigned to
different schools because of additional needs, special education
status, or transportation requirements due to costs involved. School
districts, in an effort to limit the disruption to students, may
decrease the number of title I schools and concentrate low-income
students in fewer schools, instead of economically integrating them,
which research demonstrates results in better educational outcomes.
None of these decisions will be based on educational factors that lead
to the best outcomes for kids.
Put simply, the proposed rule is not focused on educational
results, but rather dollar for dollar spending. Hold us accountable for
results, but do not make the same mistakes of NCLB by tying our hands
so we are prohibited from considering or implementing certain school
improvement strategies, assigning teachers, and providing requisite
supports and other programming to improve outcomes for kids. We all
know that there are better ways to determine whether someone is a high-
quality educator than looking only at how much they are compensated for
their services.
I believe everyone wants to get to the same result here: better
educational opportunities and outcomes for all students and the closing
of opportunity and achievement gaps. As I stated in the negotiated
rulemaking sessions, I also believe the proposed regulations on
supplement, not supplant, exceed the Department's authority under the
law. In the pursuit of more equitable outcomes, we should ensure we are
not eliminating options and undercutting systems States and school
districts have put in place to address inequities. Those systems may
have merit and should not be tossed aside without careful
consideration.
We need to work harder and smarter to address inequities in a way
that will not cause harm to the educational experience of all students.
To best facilitate that, regulation and guidance throughout ESSA should
be limited to providing clarity on otherwise ambiguous or confusing
issues; not implementing additional requirements that were not
envisioned by Congress. Guidance is not regulation, but it does give
States and school districts information as to how the Department both
interprets and plans to address provisions in the law as it moves
forward in its administration.
An example of an area my colleagues are watching closely is the
innovative assessment pilot. Innovation is not often associated with
standardized and detailed rulemaking processes. In order to respect
congressional intent and ensure a carefully designed study and valid
assessment, it will be important for the Department to stick to the
guardrail philosophy that is evidenced in ESSA. State and local
decisionmakers have a critical role to play in identifying or
developing strategies that will be effective for their schools and
students and implementing these strategies with fidelity.
This is especially true in areas where unique State-and district-
level strategies are critical to improving educational outcomes for all
students. Accountability is a prime example of this. Wisconsin is
committed to leveraging the new flexibility to examine the statewide
accountability system to ensure it is responsive to stakeholder
feedback about best practices and effective strategies. The end goal
being that all students, including low-income students, minority
students, English learners, and students with disabilities, have access
to a high-quality education. We are asking our stakeholders to take a
look at our State report cards, how they interface with Federal report
cards, what value they discern from report cards, what improvements
they would suggest, how accountability measures should relate to school
improvement strategies, what those strategies look like, and when do we
intervene as a State in a school or district. These important
conversations will inform our school improvement efforts and help us
ensure that all students have an equitable access to a high-quality
education that results in graduation and career and college readiness.
If we are going to take on these conversations in an authentic
fashion, we have to bring everyone to the table. To that end, in
Wisconsin, we have developed a comprehensive stakeholder engagement
process to facilitate discussions around strategies that result in
equitable access to educational opportunities and closing achievement
gaps. This process starts with statewide listening sessions, which will
be ongoing through the summer.
Wisconsin's statewide listening sessions are focused on getting
educators, representatives from parent groups, civil rights groups,
community organizations, businesses, and others together to provide
critical feedback on school accountability and school improvement.
Furthermore, this week we will be deploying a web-based feedback form
for anyone in the State to provide us with information. And in August,
we will be having virtual sessions on school improvement and
accountability for anyone in the State who wants to participate. These
efforts represent the first round of feedback that we will use to
inform the Equity Council I have established as my primary advisory
group as we develop our State plan. I reached out to national civil
rights organizations to help me build this council, and they will join
education-related organizations, legislators, and others so we can work
together on a comprehensive State plan.
When it comes to both funding and educational practice, States are
committed to using additional flexibility to improve educational
outcomes for all students, addressing inequities, and closing
achievement gaps. Over the course of the regulatory and guidance
process, I hope the Department remains committed to the civil rights
purpose of ESSA while allowing States to retain the flexibility to meet
student needs and work with all stakeholders in a meaningful way. Thank
you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to your
questions.
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Evers.
Dr. Ahart.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS AHART, Ed.D, SUPERINTENDENT, DES MOINES
PUBLIC SCHOOLS, DES MOINES, IA
Mr. Ahart. Good morning, Chairman Alexander, Senator
Murray, and the rest of the HELP Committee. Thank you for your
leadership on finally achieving the reauthorization of ESEA,
long overdue.
I am Tom Ahart, superintendent of the Des Moines public
schools. With my seven-member board of education, I am
responsible for the education of the largest school district in
the State of Iowa. We are committed to meeting the 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 for free and reduced price meals at
a rate of 75 percent, and are 58 percent minority.
That commitment is reflected in a steady increase in our
graduation rate and in reading, math, and science proficiency
rates and considerable progress in closing achievement gaps.
Des Moines continues to operate under the antiquated No Child
Left Behind Act since Iowa is one of the few States without a
NCLB waiver. We have more reasons than most to welcome the
enactment of the Every Student Succeeds Act, and we are working
closely with our State department of education on a statewide
implementation process.
Virtually all of the school-based representatives of the
ESSA regulations negotiations committee expressed practical
concerns regarding the impact and feasibility of a number of
the proposed regulations. These operational concerns relate to
regulatory barriers to effective instructional services for
students; interference in school autonomy in staff recruitment,
selection, and placement; unworkable criteria; unnecessary
requirements; additional costs; and unrealistic
administratively created obligations.
While regulations are intended to clarify provisions of the
statute and facilitate effective implementation, many of the
regulatory provisions appear to restrict, condition, redefine,
and even expand ESSA. I am hard pressed 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 Department's draft regulation to impose per-
pupil expenditure comparability requirements under the
supplement not supplant provision of the Act. Despite no
changes in the current ESEA comparability provisions, the
Department drafted supplement not supplant regulations that
would require per-pupil expenditure comparability between title
I schools and the average of non-title I schools.
Operationally, this proposed regulation would effectively
require salary equivalency between such schools. As Senator
Alexander already mentioned, since the Nation's teacher salary
system is primarily based on years of experience and advanced
education, schools with older, higher paid staff compared to
younger, less higher paid staff would necessarily trigger
noncompliance on an unprecedented scale. Moreover, current
Federal requirements already ensure that at least the same
number of full-time equivalent teachers are deployed in title I
as in non-title I schools.
To comply, districts would have to spend additional State
and local funds to cover salary differential between higher
paid and lower paid teachers, or, in an alternative compliance
scenario, districts potentially could shift their higher paid
teachers to title I schools and their lower paid teachers to
non-title I schools. Unfortunately, neither of these options
correlate with improving student performance, because to state
it simply, there is no relationship between salary level and
teacher effectiveness.
School districts clearly do not have the State and local
funds to cover the salary differential costs of compliance, nor
should districts disrupt instructional continuity and
communities of practice in our schools by summarily
transferring teachers. Moreover, the teacher transfer option
would violate most collective bargaining agreements.
Many districts literally would be faced with an
impossibility of performance under these regulations which have
no reasonable basis in the Act and appear to violate at least
three separate statutory prohibitions in ESSA. I hasten to add
that neither of these solutions, even if possible to implement,
reflect best education practice.
What often seems to be lost on the Department is that many
high-poverty schools are not served with title I because,
frankly, there is not enough to go around. While a 40 percent
free and reduced price meal rate can qualify a school for title
I services, just in Des Moines public schools, we have multiple
schools with an over 70 percent free and reduced price lunch
rate that we are not able to provide with title I services.
Additionally, our ability to serve schools with concentrated
poverty for which we do not have title I funds would be
jeopardized under the proposed regulations.
The ESSA was enacted with a broad base of support and good
will at the national, State, and local levels. The tendency
toward over-regulation, evident during the negotiated
rulemaking process, could undermine that broad support. No
Child Left Behind has demonstrated that the best intentions for
improving achievement of at-risk students cannot be
micromanaged from the Federal level. I would suggest that State
and local officials be given the opportunity to get it right
under ESSA.
On the other hand, the Education Department could be
helpful in issuing non-regulatory guidance that provides a non-
exclusive range of examples of implementation options for
various provisions of ESSA. There is no such thing as one-size-
fits-all. Even in Iowa, the broad range of individual district
characteristics vary widely. The only hope for successful
results from ESSA rests in the State agencies' ability to craft
a 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 4 years, 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 the model for
urban education in the United States.
The proposed ESSA regulations will force us to disrupt some
of the most effective school reform efforts in the country and
threaten the progress of some of our Nation's most
disadvantaged students. We can do better if ESSA regulations
align with the letter and the spirit of the statute itself.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the new
regulations with you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ahart follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas Ahart, Ed.D.
Good morning Chairman Alexander, Senator Murray and members of the
HELP Committee. I am Tom Ahart, superintendent of the Des Moines Public
Schools (DMPS). With my seven member board of education, I am
responsible for education in the largest school district in the State
of Iowa, serving 33,000 students across our 63 schools.
Like many school districts across the country, DMPS has undergone
major demographic changes from barely qualifying for title I
concentration grants at 15 percent census poverty two decades ago to
now having 75 percent free and reduced priced lunch eligibility. Des
Moines now enrolls 21 percent English learners, 25 percent Hispanic
students, 18 percent African American students, 7 percent Asian and
Pacific Islander students, 0.5 percent Native American students, and 15
percent students with disabilities. The country of birth of our student
body spans 106 nations and enter our schools speaking more than 100
languages.
We are committed to meeting the educational needs of each one of
our 33,000 students by recruiting and supporting a team of talented
professionals at the district level and in each one of our schools.
DMPS has been the recipient of the ASBO Certificate of Excellence in
Financial Reporting, the GFOA Certificate of Achievement. We are
implementing one of six national Principal Supervision and Support
Programs from the Wallace Foundation and a U.S. Department of Education
School Climate Transformation grant. There is an expectation of
providing a positive learning environment in every school and classroom
across Des Moines. That commitment is reflected in a steady increase in
our 4-year graduation rate and in reading, math and science proficiency
rates on our State test. Additionally, we have dramatically decreased
our days lost to out of school suspension, made considerable progress
in closing achievement gaps, and have increased student enrollment and
completion of advanced placement courses by more than 400 percent in
the last 3 years. We were also one of the first districts in the
country to sign onto and commit to The Males of Color Pledge, part of
President Obama's My Brother's Keeper initiative.
Des Moines continues to operate under the antiquated No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB), since Iowa is one of the few States without an NCLB
waiver. We have more reasons than most school districts to welcome the
enactment of the Every Students Succeeds Act (ESSA). I look forward to
the development of a more thoughtful State accountability system under
ESSA, and we are working closely with our State department of education
on a statewide implementation process.
As with most Iowa school officials, I have benefited in many ways
from the tutelage of Chairman Tom Harkin over the years. In fact, my
board of education president Rob Barron was a long-serving Harkin staff
member. That background and ongoing interaction on Federal education
policy with our Iowa delegation, however, did not prepare me for the
ESSA negotiated rulemaking process.
As a member of the Education Department's Negotiated Rulemaking
Committee, representing local school district officials, I expressed
serious concerns with proposals to expand Federal ESSA requirements
beyond those specified in the Act, as well as the proposed regulations
that directly ignored ESSA-legislated prohibitions.
Virtually all the school-based representatives on the committee
expressed practical concerns regarding the impact and feasibility of a
number of the proposed regulations. These operational concerns relate
to regulatory barriers to effective instructional services for
students, interference in school autonomy in staff recruitment and
selection, intrusion in the deployment of effective school leaders,
unworkable criteria and unnecessary requirements, additional costs, and
unrealistic administratively created obligations.
While regulations are designed to clarify provisions of the statute
and facilitate effective implementation, many of the regulatory
provisions appear to restrict, condition, redefine, and even expand
ESSA.
A number of the regulatory proposals during negotiated rulemaking
were rationalized as helping school districts understand their
responsibilities and helping auditors better monitor program
implementation. I am hard pressed, however, to identify any regulatory
additions offered by the Education Department or members of the
Rulemaking Committee that I would consider, from my perspective as
superintendent of schools, to be necessary for the effective
implementation of ESSA at the local level.
The most troubling regulatory proposal during negotiated rulemaking
was the Education Department's draft regulation to impose per-pupil
expenditure comparability requirements under the supplement, not
supplant provision of the Act.
Proposals to revise the comparability of services provisions of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) had been circulating for
more than a decade, but have never been enacted. Despite no changes in
the current ESEA comparability provisions of the statute, the Education
Department drafted proposed supplement, not supplant regulations that
would require new per-pupil expenditure comparability, including
teacher salary differentials between title I schools and the average of
non-title I schools. Operationally, this proposed regulation would
effectively require salary equivalency between such schools or require
school districts to make up the difference with State and local funds.
Since the Nation's teacher salary system is primarily based on
increasing salary increments for years of experience (as well as for
advanced educational attainment), schools with older, higher paid staff
compared to younger, less highly paid staff would necessarily trigger
noncompliance on an unprecedented scale. The school representatives on
the Rulemaking Committee did not agree with the Department's draft
regulations, and more flexible regulatory options were rejected by the
Department as well.
To comply with the Education Department's draft regulations school
districts would have to spend additional State and local funds to cover
the salary differentials between higher paid and lower paid teachers.
The Center of American Progress (CAP) reported in 2012 that the cost of
compliance with this type of per-pupil comparability requirement would
be $6.8 billion based on national data at the time, and in 2015 CAP
estimated the compliance cost at $8.5 billion nationally using the most
recent OCR expenditure data. The Council of the Great City Schools
estimated the compliance cost for their 69 member school districts
could reach $3.9 billion, ranging from millions to hundreds of millions
of dollars in individual districts.
In an alternative compliance scenario, school districts potentially
could shift their older, higher-paid teachers to title I schools and
their younger, lower-salaried teachers to non-title I schools in order
to comply.
Unfortunately, neither of these options correlate with improving
the academic performance of our students, since there is no
relationship between salary level and teacher effectiveness. Moreover,
the teacher transfer option would violate most collective bargaining
agreements and result in unwarranted disruptions in instructional
continuity and communities of practice in our schools.
Higher paid teachers teach for the same 6 hours daily and 180
school days annually as teachers with lower salaries and less time in
the profession; students receive an equivalent level of service from
their teachers regardless of salary or years of service. Moreover,
current Federal requirements already ensure that at least the same
number of full-time equivalent teachers are deployed in title I as in
non-title I schools.
School districts clearly do not have the State and local funds to
cover the salary differential costs of compliance with these draft
regulations, nor would districts want to summarily transfer higher paid
staff in order to comply. Many districts literally would be faced with
an impossibility of performance under these draft regulations--which
have no reasonable basis in the Act and appear to violate at least
three separate statutory prohibitions in ESSA.
Title I is an important element of my district's efforts to
effectively serve all of our students. What seems often to be lost on
the Department is that many high poverty schools are not served with
title I because, frankly, there is not enough to go around. While a 40
percent free/reduced price meal rate can qualify a school for title I
services, we have multiple schools with over 70 percent of students
qualifying for free/reduced priced meals that do not qualify for title
I in Des Moines. In addition to those challenges already mentioned, our
ability to best serve schools with concentrated poverty without title I
funds will also be jeopardized under the proposed regulations.
Other regulatory additions from negotiated rulemaking also are of
concern, including provisions that apparently would require: middle
schools to offer advanced math coursework to any requesting student
statewide, once the State opts to exercise the ESSA eighth grade
advanced math assessment double-testing relief; a series of
unauthorized regulatory conditions to be met before States could
qualify for an alternate assessment waiver; and restrictions on the
authorized use of nationally recognized high school assessments.
Based on the negotiated rulemaking experience, I am also concerned
about other Federal regulations that may be proposed and ultimately
finalized on ESSA implementation. While there are clearly new
flexibilities allowed under ESSA, there are numerous new State and
local responsibilities, including additional performance indicators,
more schools likely to be identified for improvement and intervention,
additional reporting and data disaggregation, and new State and local
plan requirements. We already have a lot of implementation challenges
during the upcoming transition year.
There is now an unprecedented level of collaboration in Iowa
between our State education department and local school districts on
implementation of our new responsibilities. We are jointly looking at
defining our new performance indicators, differentiating schools for
improvement measures, defining under-performance criteria, and
establishing goals and benchmarks. I meet regularly with our State
chief school officer, and several ESSA implementation planning teams
are currently being organized by our State department of education with
membership from school district staff, community members, and other
organizations from around the State. In Des Moines Public Schools, our
School Improvement Advisory Committee and our Equity Committee, both
made up of a broad range of community members, will collaborate with my
district staff to ensure sound implementation of ESSA at the local
level.
Federal regulatory expansions or restrictions, such as we
experienced in negotiated rulemaking will complicate, if not impede the
implementation process in Iowa. There are sufficient statutory
parameters on the performance indicators and weighting priorities that
States should be allowed to design their own benchmarks including
``acceleration or catch-up'' objectives. The definitions and criteria
for school differentiation need no further regulatory enhancements.
Since the English learner subgroup composition has been delegated to
the States, additional Federal requirements or further disaggregation
is unwarranted.
Even in areas of some ambiguity, such as Additional Targeted
Support and Improvement criteria beyond school year 2017-18, I would
encourage letting State and local officials work out the intricacies of
the various components of the State accountability and school
improvement system. After the draft comparability-based supplement, not
supplant regulations, I have serious concerns regarding any additional
Federal regulations on local resource allocations under the school
improvement provisions of the Act. Further Federal regulatory action
regarding the evidence-based activities referenced in numerous sections
of the Act could result in the Federal Government restricting
curriculum and intervention options, or even prohibiting instructional
activities that have shown positive results but don't have experimental
or quasi-experimental designs.
The Every Student Succeeds Act was enacted with a broad base of
support and good will at the national, State and local level. The
tendency toward over-regulation that was evident during the negotiated
rulemaking process could undermine that broad support. No Child Left
Behind has demonstrated that the best intentions for improving
achievement of at-risk students cannot be micromanaged effectively from
the Federal level. Since the Federal Government did not get it right
under NCLB, I would suggest that State and local officials should be
given the opportunity to get it right under ESSA. On the other hand,
the Education Department could be helpful in issuing non-regulatory
guidance that provides a non-exclusive range of examples of
implementation options for various provisions of ESSA that can be
considered by State and local educators. One-size-fits-all is a
misnomer. Clearly, even in Iowa, the broad range of individual district
characteristics vary widely and the only hope for successful results
from ESSA rests in the State agencies' ability to craft guidance that
is meaningful to individual State and district contexts.
Clearly, the committee and the Department have oversight
responsibilities, and hopefully will identify those instances where
State or local school officials may fall short in initial
implementation. I am encouraged, however, by the cooperation and
collaboration on ESSA between State and local education officials and
other stakeholders that has begun in the field. I hope the Education
Department ultimately takes a more collaborative approach to ESSA
regulations and implementation than has occurred to date.
Finally, I am proud of the progress my district has made over the
last 4 years, despite insufficient State funding. We are becoming the
model for urban education in the United States. The proposed ESSA
regulations will force us to disrupt some of the most effective school
reform efforts in the country and threaten the progress of some of the
most disadvantaged students in the country. We can do better if ESSA
regulations align with the letter and the spirit of the statute itself.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss ESSA implementation with
you this morning.
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Ahart.
Dr. Gordon.
STATEMENT OF NORA GORDON, Ph.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, MCCOURT
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Gordon. Thank you. Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member
Murray, and members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. I am Associate Professor at
Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy and a
research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research.
I conduct research on U.S. education policy, school
finance, and desegregation. In the course of my research on
title I, I have analyzed finance data and have also interviewed
many State and district title I directors. Today, I'll discuss
how ESSA changes the definition of supplement, not supplant and
how the Department of Education proposes to regulate it and
discuss some of the unintended consequences that could come
from this proposed regulation.
The Department's proposed rule, as other witnesses have
testified, is meant to support equity. This is a 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 students both in title I schools and in non-title
I schools.
Supplement not supplant is meant to ensure districts do not
reduce the amount of State and local money they give to a title
I school compared to what they would give that school if it did
not participate in title I. This is an important mission, given
the history of the law and past abuses.
Under No Child Left Behind and earlier versions of ESEA,
districts could comply with supplement, not supplant based on
what they bought with title I dollars, even if they gave title
I schools less State and local money and had title I funds make
up the difference. ESSA fixes that, requiring districts to show
how they distribute State and local funds to each of their
schools and that their methodology does not reduce a school's
State and local funding because of the school's participation
in title I.
Federal law still requires districts to spend funds in
accordance with program goals and track their spending
regardless of how supplement, not supplant is regulated. The
Department of Education's proposed rule would require districts
to use a methodology to allocate State and local funds that
results in each title I school spending an equal or greater
amount per pupil than the average amount it spends per pupil in
its non-title I schools.
Current data don't permit us to generate reliable evidence
on how many districts would be in compliance with the proposed
rule based on current resource allocations or how much they
would need to spend in order to comply. Aside from these
unknown costs, the rule could trigger consequences that are bad
for equity as districts are forced to consider compliance first
and what's best for kids second.
For example, the rule could penalize districts working to
increase economic or racial integration and could incentivize
districts to concentrate disadvantaged students in title I
schools. The rule could penalize district efforts to increase
teacher diversity in title I schools, because increasing
teacher diversity typically requires the recruitment of new
and, therefore, typically less expensive teachers.
The rule could penalize districts that allocate State and
local funds through weighted per-pupil formulas that generate
more money for low-income, special education, or English
language learner students. Such districts could, nonetheless,
fail under the proposed rule if higher weighted students attend
non-title I schools.
Importantly, the proposed rule only compares funding levels
in title I schools to non-title I schools. This narrow focus
penalizes other local approaches to equity and ignores the many
low-income schools that do not receive title I funds, as we've
just heard. This could punish districts that attempt to
mitigate poverty effects in those poor but non-title I schools.
Stakeholders are absolutely right to want to ensure that
Federal funds aren't used as a substitute for State and local
ones in title I schools. ESSA's new statutory language does
this by requiring districts to have allocation methodologies
that do not reduce a school's access to State and local funds
because of its participation in title I.
An alternative regulatory approach than the one that's been
proposed would be to require districts to make their
methodologies, like their spending data, publicly available.
Then parents and voters would not only see how much is spent at
each school, but they would also see district priorities as
revealed through their funding mechanisms.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this topic.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gordon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nora E. Gordon, Ph.D.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note: the views expressed here are my own and do not
necessarily reflect those of Georgetown University or the National
Bureau of Economic Research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray, and members of the
committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am
Associate Professor at Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public
Policy where I conduct research on U.S. education policy with a focus
on school finance redistribution and school desegregation. In the
course of my research on title I over the past 15 years, I have
analyzed finance data and interviewed State and district leaders and
title I directors. My research on title I has been supported by the
National Science Foundation and the Spencer Foundation, and published
in peer-reviewed economics and policy journals.
Today I will explain how ESSA changes the definition of supplement,
not supplant, how the Department of Education proposes to regulate it,
and the potential for that regulation to cause serious adverse
consequences.
what is supplement not supplant?
Supplement, not supplant is meant to ensure districts do not reduce
the amount of State and local money a title I school would receive if
it did not participate in title I--an important mission, given the
history of the law and past abuses.
Prior to ESSA, compliance was typically determined on a cost-by-
cost basis, evaluating whether each cost charged to title I was
``extra.'' This compliance approach promoted inefficient title I
spending on low-impact, unaligned ``add-ons.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Gordon, Nora and Sarah Reber. 2015. ``The Quest for a Targeted
and Effective Title I: Challenges in Designing and Implementing Fiscal
Compliance Rules.'' RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the
Social Sciences, 1(3), 129-147.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cost-by-cost approach was also bad for equity. Districts could
comply based on what they bought with title I dollars, even if they
were giving title I schools less State and local money because they
knew those schools would be getting title I funds to make up the
difference--exactly what the rule was always meant to prevent, and what
ESSA's new requirements do prevent.
how does essa change supplement not supplant?
Under ESSA, to demonstrate compliance with supplement, not
supplant, districts must show how they distribute State and local funds
to each of their schools, and that their methodology does not reduce a
school's State and local funding because of the school's participation
in title I. Specifically, the law provides a test for compliance with
supplement, not supplant in sec. 1118(b)(2):
``. . . a local educational agency shall demonstrate that the
methodology used to allocate State and local funds to each
school receiving assistance under this part ensures that such
school receives all of the State and local funds it would
otherwise receive were it not receiving assistance under this
part.''
Last week teachers sent Secretary King a letter about their concern
that ``some States could misunderstand the law's intent and use title I
for other purposes, including using it to replace State and local
funding.'' Though other provisions of ESSA are often described as
``loosening things up,'' ESSA's supplement, not supplant change raises
the bar on equity and explicitly prevents exactly this concern. The
Department already has excellent guidance on this point, because ESSA
takes what was already an option for how title I schoolwide programs
could demonstrate how title I funds were supplemental, and turns it
into law for how all title I schools must demonstrate title I funds are
supplemental.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. Department of Education. July 2015. ``Supporting School
Reform by Leveraging Federal Funds in a Schoolwide Program.'' Accessed
5/13/16 at: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/
eseatitleiswguidance.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To make this requirement even more powerful, the Department of
Education should require districts to make these methodologies publicly
available. Then parents and voters would not only see how much is spent
at each school--as newly required elsewhere in ESSA--but they would
also see district priorities, as revealed through their funding
mechanisms.
how is the department of education proposing to regulate supplement not
supplant?
The Department has proposed regulatory language on supplement, not
supplant that is quite different from the statute. It relates to a
different part of the law, comparability, which aims to promote
equitable spending across schools and which Congress did not change.
ESSA's language on comparability, like earlier versions of ESEA,
prohibits including ``staff salary differentials for years of
employment'' in the determination of comparability. Sec. 1118(c)(2)(B).
The Department wants to require districts to use a methodology that
results in each title I school spending at least as much from State and
local sources, in per-pupil dollars, as it does on average level in its
non-title I schools.
The remainder of my testimony focuses on the proposed rule, rather
than the statutory language on supplement, not supplant.
how much would the proposed rule cost districts to implement?
We do not have reliable evidence on how much this is going to cost
districts.
Costs will be different for every district, largely based on what
distributions of teacher experience across schools look like at the
district level. To answer this question convincingly at a national
level requires data that simply do not exist.
To know if each title I school in a district spends at least as
many State and local dollars per pupil as the average non-title I
school in the district, you would need to know how much State and local
money per pupil each school gets, and which schools participate in
title I.
This is less straightforward than it sounds, because most school
districts allocate full-time equivalent staff positions, or FTEs, to
their schools, rather than dollars. To know how many State and local
dollars are spent, you need to use the actual salaries of those
teachers in the school building, rather than district averages. But
many districts have one data system linking teacher names to school
buildings, and a separate data system with teacher names linked to
teacher salaries. This is why the reporting requirement in ESSA will be
so useful, and so challenging.
Some districts have systems in place already that could produce
these numbers. The Department has not provided any cost runs from such
districts.
Though most districts do not actually keep their records in a
format amenable to producing these data, they have reported out such
data to the Federal Government as required under the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The Department of Education conducted its
first School-Level Expenditure Survey in 2009; in 2011, the relevant
questions were asked again as part of the Civil Rights Data Collection.
In each of the two available years of data, districts were asked to
report expenditures, by whether or not they were related to personnel,
at the school level. They were explicitly instructed to: ``report
actual school finance data for this school. Do not report data based
upon average teacher expenditures.'' They were also instructed to
exclude Federal funds from the school-level expenditures.
The Department's own analyses that come closest to assessing the
costs of the proposed rule use the 2009 data. The study noted:
``Because school districts typically do not have accounting
systems that track expenditures at the school level and this
was the first time such data have ever been collected on a
large-scale basis, this effort faced challenges that may affect
the accuracy and consistency of the data reported. `` . . . the
data collected through this study are not consistently defined
across all States and districts, and are best used to examine
resource patterns within districts rather than across
districts.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Stullich, Stephanie. 2011. ``The Potential Impact of Revising
the Title I Comparability Requirement to Focus on School-Level
Expenditures.'' Policy Brief from the U.S. Department of Education,
Policy and Program Studies Service. Accessed 5/13/16 at: https://
www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/title-i/comparability-requirement/
comparability-policy-brief.pdf.
Therefore, the Department is proposing a rule at a point in time
where the information needed to understand how it would actually affect
districts and students is not reliable.
how could the proposed rule worsen school quality for poor students?
We can understand how the proposed rule changes incentives for
district-level policy in a more general sense, even if we cannot
reliably estimate how much it would cost districts nationally to
comply. Districts seeking to comply with the new rule would take money
out of their non-title I schools in order to bring average spending
down there, and use it to raise State and local spending in some or all
of their title I schools. How districts would do this would depend on
local circumstances, particularly how teachers are spread across
schools by experience. But many strategies districts are likely to turn
to conflict with equity.
All parties involved at negotiated rulemaking did not want
to make districts do ``forced transfers'' of teachers. But if you need
to move a lot of money around across schools, and you spend most of
your money on teachers, it's unclear how else to do it.
Forced transfers isn't just a union issue, it's a quality
issue. title I schools could wind up with the teachers the non-title I
schools choose not to retain. If principals choose which teachers they
retain, non-title I principals will release their least preferred
teachers into the pool for title I schools to hire. While teacher
spending at title I schools would go up, average teacher quality at
title I schools could go down.
How else could districts get funds out of non-title I schools and
into title I schools?
They could reduce existing efforts for economic or racial
desegregation, or not take up new ones. For example, recent events in
Loudoun County are an example of how proponents of integration
sometimes must argue against proposals that segregating high-needs
students is beneficial because it gives them access to more
resources.\5\ This effort to segregate students failed, but the
proposed rule would give ammunition to similar efforts to segregate
children because under the proposed rule, establishing or maintaining a
more integrated school system could result in non-compliance if it
results in a higher per pupil average in non-title I schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Balingit, Moriah. March 20, 2016. ``Separate but equal? Wealthy
county's plan would concentrate low-income, Hispanic students.''
Washington Post. Accessed 5/13/16 at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/
local/education/separate-but-equal-loudoun-plan-would-concentrate-poor-
Hispanic-students/2016/03/20/db6f2cca-e7a8-11e5-b0fd-
073d5930a7b_story.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, because the proposed rule only judges equity and
compliance based on title I vs. non-title I school status, districts
might give pause to anything that could raise average per-pupil
spending in non-title I schools. This could include, but is not limited
to:
drawing more economically integrated school boundaries
and giving additional resources to support economically diverse
schools,
voluntary school desegregation efforts like magnet
schools which typically cost more money,
transfer options or school choice options that allow
low-income students to move from low-performing schools to
higher performing schools, when the money follows the student,
efforts by municipalities to integrate affordable
housing into neighborhood development through zoning
requirements and provide additional resources to receiving
schools.
Districts could cut back on efforts to increase teacher
diversity in title I schools because increasing teacher diversity
typically requires the recruitment of new, and therefore typically less
expensive, teachers.
Districts could change which eligible schools receive
title I funds, either no longer serving schools that currently receive
title I, or distributing funds to additional eligible schools--not
based on educational need, but based on compliance concerns.
Districts could remove or reduce specialized schools or
programming if they raise the non-title I average, such as schools that
focus on career technical education, performing arts, or science and
technology, as well as within-school programs that address specific
needs such as autism programs, dyslexia programs, or gifted and
talented programs. These types of programs are often used to increase
racial or economic diversity within a district.
Districts could choose to eliminate existing, or not
implement, pay for performance initiatives if they result in increased
spending in non-title I schools.
The rule creates a compliance assumption that title I students are
better off remaining in title I schools that receive more State and
local money. District practices to intentionally dilute high
concentrations of poverty at the school-level, such as those described
above, may run afoul of the proposed rule.
To understand the types of mechanisms listed above, one needs to
consider how districts allocate resources.
how the incentives work: hypothetical lincoln public schools example
It seems counterintuitive that a rule requiring districts to spend
the same or more dollars per pupil in each of their title I schools
than the average in their non-title I schools could result in making
poor students worse off. However, to show the mechanics of these
incentives, I have constructed a simplified example with a hypothetical
school district, Lincoln Public Schools (LPS). Its three elementary
schools are described in Table 1. In practice, the exact incentives
will vary by district, mainly depending on how its teachers are
distributed across schools by experience.
Table 1: Baseline Enrollment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I Percent Poor Non-poor
School school poor students students
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adams ES.................... Yes 80 800 200
Main St. ES................. Yes 75 750 250
Union ES.................... No 40 400 600
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It shows each school has 1,000 students. Adams ES is 80 percent
poor, Main St. ES is 75 percent poor, and Union ES is 40 percent poor.
Though all three schools are eligible for title I funds under Federal
law, the district has chosen to serve Adams and Main St. but not Union,
with title I funds.
staffing methodology
LPS weights poor students when determining how many teachers are
assigned to each school--with the policy goal of having more FTEs in
poor schools. The practice of using enrollment to assign teachers to
schools is far more common than using enrollment to assign dollars to
schools. In LPS's methodology, each non-poor student receives a weight
of 1.0, and each poor student receives a weight of 1.2. Each school's
weighted enrollment therefore is equal to its number of poor students
multiplied by 1.2, plus its number of non-poor students (multiplied by
1).
LPS then assigns one full-time equivalent teacher (FTE) per 20
weighted students. 20 poor students = 20*1.2 = 24 weighted students, so
would generate 24/20 = 1.2 FTEs for their school. 20 non-poor students
simply generate 20*1 = 20 weighted students and 1 FTE.
Table 2 shows each school's weighted enrollment and the number of
FTEs per school generated under this methodology.
Table 2: Baseline Weighted Enrollment and FTEs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I Percent Poor Non-poor Weighted Formula
School school poor students students enrollment FTEs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adams ES..................................... yes 80 800 200 1,160 58
Main St. ES.................................. yes 75 750 250 1,150 57.5
Union ES..................................... no 40 400 600 1,080 54
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is well-established that high-poverty schools are
disproportionately staffed by less experienced teachers. Because
teacher salaries rise with experience, this means that a school with
fewer experienced teachers will spend less per student than another
school with the same teacher:student ratio.
In this simplified example, consider only two types of teachers,
experienced (paid $75,000 per year) and inexperienced (paid $35,000 per
year). Table 3 shows the distribution of teachers by experience over
the schools in LPS: 45 percent of teachers in Adams ES are
inexperienced and 50 percent of teachers in Main St. ES, while 30
percent of teachers in Union ES are inexperienced.
Applying the salaries for experienced and inexperienced teachers,
we can see how much each school is spending in dollars. To calculate
school spending per pupil, divide this amount by the school's
enrollment (not the weighted enrollment).
Table 3: FTEs, Teacher Experience and Spending Per Pupil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
School
School Title I Percent Formula Percent FTEs spending
school poor FTEs inexperienced PP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adams ES............................................. yes 80 58 45 $3,306.00
Main St. ES.......................................... yes 75 57.5 50 $3,162.50
Union ES............................................. no 40 54 30 $3,402.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 shows how even though LPS is choosing to allocate more
teachers to higher poverty schools by weighting poverty in its staffing
methodology, the distribution of teacher experience in LPS means it is
spending less in dollars per pupil in its title I schools than its non-
title I schools.
Because there is only one non-title I school in this example, Union
ES, the average spending per pupil in LPS's non-title I schools is
simply spending per pupil in Union ES, $3,402. Neither of the title I
schools, Adams and Main St., spends as much per pupil. LPS would
therefore not comply with the proposed rule.
During negotiations, LEA and SEA representatives spoke about how
they would have to move people around in order to comply. What does
this look like in this example? There are several approaches.
getting to compliance by concentrating poor students
The proposed rule requires LPS to get money into its title I
schools and out of its non-title I school. Because its staffing
methodology means poor students bring additional FTEs to a school than
non-poor students, taking poor students out of Union and putting them
into title I schools will help LPS comply with the proposed rule. Table
4 shows how this would work in LPS.
Imagine LPS moves 250 poor students who previously attended (non-
title I) Union ES to (title I) Main St. ES, and 250 non-poor student
who previously attended Main St. to Union. It could do so in any number
of ways: redrawing attendance boundaries, eliminating an intradistrict
choice plan, or stopping an existing busing plan.
Table 4: Increasing Economic Segregation Yields Compliance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent School
School Title I Percent Poor Non-poor Weighted Formula FTEs spending
school poor students students enrollment FTEs inexp PP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adams ES....................................................... yes 80 800 200 1,160 58 45 $3,306.00
Main St. ES.................................................... yes 100 1,000 0 1,200 60 50 $3,300.00
Union ES....................................................... No 15 150 850 1,030 51.5 30 $3,244.50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, the average spending per pupil in non-title I schools (Union
ES) is $3,244.50 and both Adams and Main St. exceed that, so LPS has
achieved compliance with the rule. While increasing economic
segregation across schools allows LPS to comply, there is strong
research consensus that this is actively bad for economically
disadvantaged students. This research base underlies the Department of
Education's new Stronger Together initiative, offering grants to school
districts for voluntary economic desegregation plans.
In this simple example, I have not included any additional weights
for students with disabilities or English learners, but such weights
are common in practice and the same logic applies. The exact incentives
facing a particular district will depend on its weights.
What if LPS does not want to move its students around? What other
options exist?
getting to compliance by changing which title i-eligible schools are
served
In the baseline scenario described in Tables 1-3 (that is, before
LPS moved students as described in Table 4) LPS had the option to serve
one, two, or three of its three elementary schools, because at least 40
percent of students were poor in each school. LPS initially had been
serving Adams and Main St., which were 80 percent and 75 percent poor,
and choosing not to serve Union, that was only 40 percent poor. In
practice, districts vary widely in how they choose which title I
eligible schools, within the ranking and serving rules, and a policy
like this one is not uncommon.
If LPS chooses to serve all its title I eligible schools, the new
rule would not apply so the district would not be in violation. It
would, however, be reallocating Federal funds from its highest poverty
schools to its lowest poverty school in order to gain this exception.
LPS could also choose to no longer serve Main St. ES with title I,
instead serving only Adams. In this case, the average spending per
pupil in non-title I schools now would come from the average of Adams
and Union rather than just high-spending Union alone (see Table 3).
Low-spending Main St. now pulls down this average to $3,282.25 (the
$3,402 PP at Union + 3,162.50 PP at Main St., divided by two), making
Adams--which still would be spending the same amount as before, $3,306
per pupil--now spending more than the average in the district's non-
title I schools. Adams therefore meets the rule. By not serving Main
St., LPS is no longer required to meet any particular threshold
spending per pupil at the school, though it remains a high-poverty
school. Overall, this change makes LPS compliant.
increasing weights on poor students in staffing methodology
LPS may well want to keep title I funds in Adams and Main St.
because these are its highest poverty schools, without spreading them
to Union, or increasing economic segregation in its schools. If it is
committed to having a consistent and transparent staffing methodology
(that is, it doesn't want to use its formula and then take some
fractional position out of Union in a post hoc manner to spread over
Adams and Main St.) it might think increasing the weights on student
poverty would help.
In this example, even if LPS increase the weight on poor students
from 1.2 to 1.4, it would fall short of meeting the proposed rule.
Table 5 shows how this change in weighting would affect FTEs and
spending per pupil across the schools, assuming that the fraction of
inexperienced teachers remains constant at each school.
Table 5: Weighting Poor Students 1.4 instead of 1.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent School
School Title I Percent Poor Non-poor Weighted Formula FTEs spending
school poor students students enrollment FTEs inexp PP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adams ES....................................................... Yes 80 800 200 1,320 66 45 $3,762.00
Main St. ES.................................................... Yes 75 750 250 1,300 65 50 $3,575.00
Union ES....................................................... No 40 400 600 1,160 58 30 $3,654.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average spending per pupil in the non-title I schools is still
determined by Union ES, now $3,654. The additional weight brought Adams
above that level but not Main St., so LPS would not be in compliance,
even after adding 19.5 FTEs as dictated by the new staffing
methodology.
forced transfers
All parties involved in negotiations did not support the use of
forced transfers of teachers and collectively bargained agreements
prohibit them in many cases. However, LPS could solve its compliance
problem by forcing teacher swaps: Adams and Main St. could each trade
five inexperienced teachers to Union for five experienced teachers.
Table 6 shows the allocation of teachers and dollars before and after
that forced transfer.
Table 6: Forced Transfers Achieve Compliance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before Forced Transfer
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted Formula Inexp. Exp. School
School enrollment FTEs FTEs FTEs spending PP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adams ES.............................................. 1,160 58 26.1 31.9 $3,306.00
Main St. ES........................................... 1,150 57.5 28.75 28.75 $3,162.50
Union ES.............................................. 1,080 54 16.2 37.8 $3,402.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After Forced Transfer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adams ES.............................................. 1,160 58 21.1 36.9 $3,506.00
Main St. ES........................................... 1,150 57.5 23.75 33.75 $3,362.50
Union ES.............................................. 1,080 54 26.2 27.8 $3,002.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6 shows what happens when 10 experienced teachers are moved
out of Union. Five of these teachers are placed in Adams and five in
Main St. They are replaced at Union with five inexperienced teachers
from Adams and five inexperienced teachers from Union. Because of the
salary differentials, the new spending per pupil in non-title I Union
is now lowered to $3,002.00, and Adams and Main St. each spend more,
complying with the proposed rule.
recommendations
Given the history of title I, stakeholders are absolutely right to
want to know how equity will be ensured. ESSA's statutory language does
so by forcing districts to describe their resource allocation method
and to show it does not penalize title I schools because of their
participation in title I.
The statutory language prevents districts from using Federal funds
to replace State and local revenue in title I schools. At the same
time, it allows local school districts to design programs specific to
district needs. The Department's proposed rule either requires one
specific methodology (a weighted student funding formula)--and the law
prohibits a federally defined methodology--or a lot of post-hoc moving
around of funds, actually forcing districts to move away from
consistent and transparent funding allocations.
The Department should work with States to make sure districts
understand this rule now applies to all title I schools. And they
should require districts to make these methodologies publicly available
to improve transparency and make accountability local and meaningful.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important topic.
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Gordon.
Ms. Marshall.
STATEMENT OF DENISE MARSHALL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COUNCIL OF
PARENT ATTORNEYS AND ADVOCATES, TOWSON, MD
Ms. Marshall. Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray,
and members of the committee, I'm honored to be here today to
represent COPAA, a national peer-to-peer network that works to
protect the civil rights of students with disabilities and
their families.
We stand strong to say our kids count, they can achieve,
and what they need and deserve is an equal opportunity to
succeed. COPAA thanks you for your bipartisan leadership in
passing our Nation's general education law, the Every Student
Succeeds Act.
We worked very closely throughout the reauthorization with
our disability, civil rights, and business communities to
ensure that ESSA included critical provisions that would, in
fact, buoy up the students it is intended to support. This
includes 7.7 million black students, 13.1 million Hispanic
students, 25 million students from low-income families, 4.5
million English language learners, and 6.4 million students
with disabilities.
ESSA gained COPAA's support precisely because, although it
has that great focus on State flexibility, which is important,
we were also able to ensure that it had accountability, key
provisions that would protect all. It's harsh to recall and
it's unbelievable to realize that students with disabilities
only had access to education in my lifetime, but it took them
40 years. Prior to the passage of No Child Left Behind, they
were not counted. They were not included in the assessments in
the State, local, or district accessibility systems, and as a
result, they were all but invisible.
Not including them in the count and not holding schools
accountable for their learning limited access to the general
education curriculum and created separate and often segregated
instruction. Parents had no idea how their children were doing
in school as compared to the State standards. Now, the
requirements of ESSA give us clear information that can assist
parents in assuring their child can access the regular
classroom, access the regular curriculum, and have a real shot
at a regular diploma.
This is a civil rights law, and we have fought hard for
equal access. Our kids want in, and our families deserve to
have the same data about their child's achievement as every
other child in the building. Through the eyes and ears of the
COPAA network, we know the importance of this law and its
regulations to keep expectations high.
Coupled with the requirements of the IDEA and other Federal
laws protecting the rights of students and their families, the
provisions in ESSA can change the trajectory of a student's
life. I want to share two stories. One is about Bruce, a 19-
year-old from South Carolina who struggled and suffered,
bullied relentlessly, unable to keep up because of his
dyslexia. But with the relentless efforts of his parents and
his educators and the right services for his dyslexia, he is
graduating high school, has a full-time job, and heading to
college in the fall.
And Blair, a young woman from Pennsylvania who with
accommodations and the support of her service dog graduated
high school and is currently a public relations major in
college. We have a long way to go before we can support the
success of all students. But we know the possibilities for each
to succeed are substantial and real.
Today, I focus on some important provisions for us:
Creating that public transparency in the data, which I know we
all share, and requiring school leaders to do something about
it when the data shows there is reason to act. Accountability
equals responsibility. ESSA no longer contains the mandates and
consequences of its predecessor, and I think we were all
dancing for that.
But the responsibility lies squarely with the schools. ESSA
includes core principles and important guardrails that we know
can both guide educational decisionmaking and protect resources
and students. Critical provisions are intended to assure, and
strong regulations must support the requirement for action when
outcomes or the lack thereof demand it.
We have to have State-designed systems that have rigorous
goals and interim measures of progress; that have statistically
valid summative ratings on both academic and the additional
quality indicators; clear requirements for identification and
intervention in each of the three categories of the law;
timely, evidence-based intervention focused on raising
achievement. We simply cannot leave any child to languish with
no intervention. They need to have the intervention and
services in a timeframe that can have an impact in their
educational lifetime.
We also want title I regulations to provide for a range of
statistically reliable and accepted N sizes, and we want to
assure State support is provided to districts to reduce
bullying, harassment, and discipline, and the use of restraint
and seclusion, all of which are disproportionately used on
students with disabilities and students of color and result not
only in harm and trauma, but make it impossible for them to
learn. We need safe school climates.
You passed ESSA to advance the educational equity and serve
the interests of all students. That is the test and the
measurement that counts. State and district efforts to
implement ESSA must target policies and resources on the urgent
needs of students in what is arguably the most important
journey of their formative lives, their K to 12 education.
I want to just finally add that I urge us to get past the
tug of war of control and figure out a way to invest equitably
in students and find innovative ways to assure that greater
numbers of students, including those of color, ELL, and with
disabilities, are able to succeed.
I thank you for this opportunity, and I look forward to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Marshall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Denise Marshall
Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray and members of the
committee thank you for inviting me to testify today on the
implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). I am Denise
Marshall, executive director of the Council of Parent Attorneys and
Advocates (COPAA). COPAA is a national non-profit peer-to-peer network
of parents, attorneys, advocates, and related professionals who work to
protect the civil rights and secure excellence in education on behalf
of the 6.4 million children with disabilities \1\ attending public
school across the United States. We are an important voice in our
children's education and we stand strong and loud to say our kids
count, they can achieve and they want an equal opportunity to succeed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ IDEA eligible students ages 3-21, (2012). NCES, U.S. Department
of Education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is through your bipartisan partnership that the Nation's general
education law has successfully been updated. COPAA appreciates your
leadership to accomplish this. Throughout the reauthorization process,
COPAA worked closely in coalitions with the disability, civil rights
and business communities--across lines that often divide us on public
policy issues--to assure that ESSA included provisions we all believed
were critical to assuring students for which the law is intended to
support--would in fact do so. And yes, in the process, none of the
parties invested in ESSA's outcome secured everything they wanted,
however, COPAA believes ESSA does include the essential components that
protect and support our most disadvantaged students.
These students are the: 7.7 million Black students; 13.1 million
Hispanic students; 25 million students from low-income families; 6.4
million students with disabilities; and 4.5 million English Language
Learners \2\ who attend our Nation's public schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ National Center on Education Statistics at: http://nces.ed.gov/
fastfacts/#.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESSA gained COPAA's support because, while it provides new
flexibility for decisions to be made by States and districts, it does
include several provisions that we believe are key to providing
continued accountability for all students, including students with
disabilities who, as you know, prior to the passage of No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) had never been included in State assessments and in
school, district or State accountability systems. While hard to
imagine, it's true and while the performance of all student groups,
including students with disabilities, has risen dramatically between
2000 and 2013,\3\ the achievement gap is still far too large between
White students and students of color. And, students with disabilities
continue to lag far behind on substantive outcomes that we know predict
future success, especially on key outcomes such as: grade level
proficiency in reading and math; graduation from high school;
matriculation into college and, becoming employed. \4\ We do see
improvement when districts and States take seriously the need to set
high expectations for all students; to increase and sustain full access
to the regular classroom staffed with trained and certified teachers;
and, to provide the instructional support, interventions and
accommodations that allow students with disabilities to succeed
alongside their peers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ National Center on Education Statistics, National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP), 2015, at http://nces.ed.gov/
nationsreportcard/pubs/main2013/2014451.aspx.
\4\ 37 percent of 8th grade students with disabilities scored at or
above basic in reading on the National Assessment of Education Progress
(NAEP), compared with 81 percent of students without disabilities; 63
percent of students with disabilities graduate from high school as
compared to 82 percent of students without disabilities; and, 19.1
percent of people with disabilities are participating in the U.S. Labor
force as compared to 68.2 percent of people without disabilities. See:
National Center on Education Statistics, National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP), 2015, at http://nces.ed.gov/
nationsreportcard/pubs/main2013/2014451.aspx. National Center on
Education Statistics, 2013-2014, at http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/tables/
ACGR_RE_
and_characteristics_2013-14.asp; U.S. Department of Labor, 2015 at
www.dol.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through the eyes and ears of our network of members, we know the
importance of the law and its accompanying regulations to keep
expectations high and change the trajectory of student lives. I'd like
to share a few COPAA stories to remind us all of what the real
possibilities are for real students.
Bruce, a 19 year-old from South Carolina struggled and suffered;
bullied relentlessly, unable to keep up, suffered trauma and self-
esteem issues from low expectations due to his inability to read. The
fact is that Bruce is incredibly bright, and with persistence,
relentless efforts of his parents and educators, and the right services
and supports for his dyslexia--he graduated high school and is off to
college in the Fall.
Mariano from California has an Individualized Education Program and
is working hard in high school to fulfill his goal to play and conduct
for the New York Philharmonic Orchestra--and to be a Music and History
Professor.
Blair, a young woman from Pennsylvania, who with accommodations and
the support of her service dog, graduated high school and is currently
a sophomore at York College. She is a Public Relations major with a
minor in Nonprofit Management.
accountability: why it matters & what it includes
Today, I'd like to focus on the important components of ESSA that
are inherently linked to both creating public transparency in the
data--which is a goal I know we all share--and giving school leaders
and the public the information and requirements necessary to actually
do something when the data show there is reason to do so. I'd also like
to reiterate what we've said throughout the reauthorization and as I've
shared through several stories: real accountability for student
subgroups matters and it matters to children right now. Real
accountability is not an esoteric exercise in reporting test scores and
it is not about gaming the numbers so it appears as if schools are
doing better than they really are, nor, as history has shown, is it
setting standards so low that the diploma students receive is virtually
worthless when they try to enter the military, matriculate into college
or access career training only to find they are ill-prepared for the
next phase of their life. Accountability is responsibility--and now
that important responsibility lies squarely with the school, the
district and the State.
ESSA assures that this shift in responsibility is still backed by
core principles and important guardrails that we know can both guide
educational decisionmaking and protect resources and students. While
ESSA no longer contains the mandates and consequences of its
predecessor, it does include critical provisions intended to assure the
adults responsible for the children do something when outcomes demand
it.
A key function of a school accountability system is to communicate
what is expected of schools both to the schools themselves and to the
public. In order for school accountability systems to support
improvement and gap closing, these expectations have to be both
rigorous and focused on student outcomes. Schools and districts must be
compelled by the important combination of data and accountability
requirements to provide the instructional support, intervention and
supports students need and in a timeframe that will actually impact
struggling students. States must design systems that will strike this
critical balance.
Unfortunately, past history shows that when left to their own
devices, States often set expectations for their schools far too low.
They typically do this because pressure from special interest groups
makes setting rigorous goals too daunting. In fact, States have set
graduation goals as low as 60 percent and allowed as little
as .1 percent of annual growth to count as progress against State
goals. Recently, we've also seen how easily States can allow the focus
of accountability to shift away from student learning. This is
unacceptable.
Sarah, a parent currently living in Maryland, whose husband is
active military, knows firsthand from advocating across multiple States
due to family moves, that academic expectations and allowed level of
parent involvement vary greatly from State to State and from school to
school. The fact is that one mile, whether it's a country mile or a
city mile, can make a huge difference in educational opportunity and
therefore in the life of a family and a child. While we respect State
rights and autonomy, Sarah and so many other parents like her across
our great country urge regulators to use all authority to put up
guardrails in ESSA that ensure meaningful progress is realized toward
closing the achievement gap for at risk children. We must have clear
regulations for such areas as the definition of ``consistently
underperforming'' and specifying timeframes for necessary intervention
and action when subgroups of students are not achieving to ensure
Sarah's children and all at-risk children do not slip through the
cracks or experience multi-year delays in their educational progress.
We must stay focused on the purpose of ESSA which as stated in the
statute is: ``To provide all children significant opportunity to
receive a fair, equitable, and high-quality education, and to close
educational achievement gaps.'' COPAA and the entire civil rights
community has long recognized equal educational opportunity as central
to our struggle to achieve equality for all Americans. Full ESSA
implementation must not delay nor promote retreat.
Our children deserve better and require prompt action. So, we want
an accountability system, designed by each State that will ensure:
(1) the expectations for all student groups are rigorous;
(2) the State-designed school ratings reflect the learning outcomes
of all groups of students, and
(3) meaningful action is taken whenever the school is
underperforming for all students or for any student group.
In order to achieve these three important components of State
accountability systems, we have encouraged ED, through forthcoming ESSA
regulations on accountability to assure that:
States explain their methodology for setting ambitious
goals and interim performance targets that require significant progress
toward closing achievement gaps.
States fully understand and provide the [types of] clear
evidence needed to demonstrate that their goals meet their system's
criteria including alignment with State standards and levels of
achievement as applicable.
States provide a statistically valid summative rating
based on their academic indicators and the additional school quality
indicator(s) to annually provide meaningful differentiation between
schools and determine how the school is doing in meeting the interim
performance targets and ambitious goals.
All school quality indicators are disaggregated by student
group within each school as required in ESSA in a statistically valid
manner.
State systems maintain a strong focus on student
achievement and attainment including that States have to demonstrate
that the other indicator of school quality cannot be weighted such that
it prevents a school from being identified for comprehensive support
and improvement, targeted support and improvement, or additional
targeted support and improvement if the school would have been
identified as such based on the academic indicators.
States base the definition of ``consistently
underperforming' on their statewide goals and interim performance
targets for each group of students. The definition for consistently
underperforming must not be based on the size of the achievement gaps
within schools. States must publicly report their definition of
``consistently underperforming,'' including both the level and duration
of underperformance required. Because ESSA requires States to ensure
that their accountability systems clearly identify and require action
in any school that is consistently underperforming for any group of
students. The fact that both school identification and action are
triggered by ``consistent underperformance'' the way this term is
defined will be critical to ensuring that schools are held accountable
for the performance of all groups of students. A lax definition could
allow some students to languish for years in schools that are not
serving them well.
In alignment with the statute, States are prohibited from
measuring the performance of a super-group of students in place of
individual student groups. In recent years, as more and more States
have been designing their own accountability systems, many have chosen
to base their school ratings either solely on schoolwide average
performance, or on schools' performance for students overall and for a
super-group of students. As a result, in most States, school ratings
tell parents and community members little about how schools are
performing for individual groups of students. Schools that are doing
fairly well on average, but are performing poorly for, for example,
their poor students, or their students with disabilities, are allowed
to ignore this underperformance.
School accountability [summative] ratings, or combination
of ratings (be they letter grades, other labels, index values or
rankings etc.) must reflect how each school is performing for each
group of students that it serves, as well as whether the school is
consistently underperforming for any student group. Ratings must be
based on disaggregated results for each group of students, and
differentiate schools that consistently underperform for any group.
States demonstrate how their exit criteria for schools
identified for comprehensive support and improvement, as well as for
those requiring additional targeted support and improvement (a) require
meaningful, sustained improvement on the indicators in the system, and
(b) are related to the State's long-term goals and interim progress
targets. Exit criteria are public and States must describe how the
school meet the criteria.
States specify what constitutes ``unsuccessful
implementation'' of improvement plans in targeted support and
improvement schools; timelines for escalated action in comprehensive
support and improvement and additional targeted support and improvement
schools; and, describe how they will ensure that their districts take
action in targeted support and improvement schools within a reasonable
timeframe. The law is not clear on what constitutes ``unsuccessful
implementation''--a term that is important both for setting clear
improvement expectations and for preventing students from languishing
for an extended period of time in schools that are not serving them
well. Also, States must intervene in schools receiving comprehensive
support and improvement that do not meet exit criteria within a State-
determined number of years (not to exceed 4 years per ESSA).
States describe how they will determine the appropriate
supports and interventions for comprehensive support and improvement
schools and additional targeted support and intervention schools that
do not meet State-determined exit criteria. In addition, States should
be required to describe how they will ensure that their districts will
take similarly meaningful action in targeted support and improvement
schools that do not make necessary improvements.
In addition to the specific accountability provisions articulated
above, COPAA has also advocated for title I regulations that, in
summary, support a strong accountability system and provide:
clear requirements for identification, intervention and
exit criteria for schools in each of the three categories identified in
the law--the bottom 5 percent, schools with graduation rates below 67
percent and schools with consistently low performing groups of
students; and assure evidence-based intervention systems focused on
raising achievement are initiated whenever any school is
underperforming for all students or for any student group so that
students don't languish year after year without help;
definitions and/or parameters set for new statutory
terms--specifically for new terms: ``meaningful differentiation,''
``substantial weight'' and ``much greater weight'';
specifications that the 95 percent participation
requirement is included in the accountability system so the performance
of students matters, provide Federal guidance on options for doing so
and define consequences for failure to meet the requirement;
assurances for support to districts to reduce bullying,
harassment, use of disciplinary practices (e.g. suspension and
expulsion) and use of aversives (e.g. seclusion and restraint), all of
which disproportionately impact students with disabilities and students
of color;
universal access in all data reporting; cross-tabulated
data and expansion on the availability of data disaggregated by Asian
American and Pacific Islander categories;
clarity that supplement, not supplant provisions presume
and ensure an equal base of actual per-pupil funding before any Federal
funds are considered supplemental.
accountability: calculation and reporting
The basis of a good accountability system is a reliable cell size,
or N size. The minimum subgroup size, or ``N'' size, established by
many States under NCLB resulted in seriously limiting accountability
for students with disabilities. A 2013 report of subgroup sizes used in
States found that across 40 States with relevant data for the 2008-9
school year, slightly more than a third (35 percent) of public schools
were accountable for the performance of the students with disabilities
subgroup, representing just over half (58) percent of tested students
with disabilities in those States.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 2013 The Inclusion of Students with Disabilities in School
Accountability Systems, Institute for Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education at: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20134017/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States must assure the subgroup data used as the basis of their
accountability determinations and reporting truly reflect the students
attending school while still protecting privacy. COPAA has also
advocated that in addition to ED providing regulations that provide a
range for statistically reliable and acceptable N sizes to States so
that as many students are included in school, district and State
accountability metrics as possible and that ED must also clarify that
while subgroup size must be the same for all subgroups, subgroup size
may vary depending on the metric, i.e., proficiency, participation and
graduation rate.) While subgroup size for proficiency involves
statistical reliability (the degree of confidence associated with the
decision of whether or not enough students in a subgroup performed
above the cut point for proficiency to meet the annual objective), test
participation and graduation rate calculations are only tempered by the
requirement to not reveal personally identifiable information (the
inability to determine from the subgroup values reported how an
individual student performed on an indicator).
Accountability for the outcome of each child's journey remains
critically important and matters more than ever. We must not give into
the belief and argument by some that all our struggling schools need is
just more resources and more time. COPAA insists that accountability at
the school and district level is often the only tool to assure action
occurs when low income, minority, English learners and students with
disabilities are in miserable need for more.
rulemaking and moving toward implementation
As we anticipate new regulations to be promulgated on ESSA's
accountability provisions, COPAA supports ED's goal to assure such
regulation provides clarity to States and districts as they strive to
implement the new law. In previous testimony, COPAA said:
COPAA and its civil rights and business coalition partners
are confident that the provisions [in ESSA] are specific and
limited enough as to not erode the regulatory authority of ED.
The statutory language acknowledges that regulations will be
promulgated. In so doing, the Secretary of Education will issue
regulations that clarify and interpret statutory provisions to
help schools and districts in implementing the law and to
protect the rights of all children--without exceeding the scope
of the statute and without being inconsistent with the statute.
This regulatory action is necessary and appropriate to fulfill
the requirements of the law. It is clear that ED has the
correct regulatory authority to develop regulations for
implementation, as noted in the beginning of section
1111(e)(1)(A). Prior to enactment of the ESSA, at no time has
the Secretary of Education had the authority to promulgate
regulations that are inconsistent with or outside the scope of
Federal law.
We know from past history regarding civil rights laws that we
need regulations in order to ensure the law is implemented. The
effect of no regulations means that courts must adjudicate the
intent of the statute. An example is the turmoil that happened
when the section 504 statute of the Rehabilitation Act was
passed in 1973 and there were no regulations issued. In order
for this law to become effective, regulations had to be issued
defining who was a ``person with a disability'' what did
``otherwise qualified'' mean, what constituted
``discrimination'' and ``nondiscrimination'' in the context of
disability etc. Enforcement timelines had to be developed as
well as an administrative enforcement mechanism. The
regulations would provide a consistent, coherent interpretation
of 504s legal intent rather than leaving it up to any judge who
heard a 504 case to interpret what the law meant. There was
much delay; the disability community filed a lawsuit in Federal
court; the judge ruled that regulations must be issued but not
when. After much back and forth with the Carter administration,
regulations were finally issued in 1977. History has taught us
that the courts are not set up to be experts.
We also know that States' provisions that restrict
entitlements established by Federal statutes are void under the
Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has
applied this principle in cases regarding benefit programs in
which the Federal Government provides funding to States on the
condition that they comply with the terms of the Federal
program, the same arrangement that exists for special education
under IDEA. The Court held that the State was not free to adopt
a definition that restricted benefits in a way the Federal
statute did not specifically authorize.
In its simplest form, regulation allocates responsibility to
implement statutory law. Our Founding Fathers were insightful
in their separation of powers. The members of the Judicial
Branch are experts in judging the law, Congress maintains the
knowledge in making laws and the executive branch holds the
expertise in implementing the laws. Where we get in trouble is
where one branch tries to do the job of another.
The test of regulations, guidance, technical assistance and other
implementation activities for ESSA must be whether or not they advance
educational equity and serve the interests of all students. Low-income
students, students of color, students with disabilities, English
learners, and Native students deserve no less than robust and thorough
regulation to close opportunity and achievement gaps.
COPAA is satisfied with the recent outcome of negotiated rulemaking
on draft regulations focused on ESSA's assessment provisions. In our
view, a delicate balance was struck to ensure that all students are
fully included in State assessment systems and that students with
disabilities in particular will have access to testing accommodations
and assistive technology and be properly included in State guidelines
as required when States develop alternate assessments on alternate
academic achievement standards. We were also content with provisions
included to guide ED in determining whether States can access annual
waivers to exceed the cap on student participation at the State level
on alternate assessments. Good statutory language helped support this
thoughtful negotiation and we thank this committee for your leadership
and support in protecting students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities whose disabilities are often used as the sole reason to
lower expectations and relegate such students to segregated settings
thus limiting access to the regular classroom, to a regular diploma and
to competitive employment.
We were disappointed however, that agreement was not reached to
ensure funding equity in the ``supplement, not supplant'' provisions
because title I funding is critical to improving our most impoverished
schools. Although students with disabilities are found in every school,
the disability community is particularly concerned about the needs of
students with disabilities in high-poverty schools and are likely to
bear the brunt of weak instruction, insufficient supports and
inadequate services which further stresses teaching staff who already
have to do too much with too little and it perpetuates and widens the
achievement gap for these students. Students of color who have
disabilities are some of the most marginalized students in our schools
today, they are more likely to be found in high-poverty schools than
their White, nondisabled peers and are disproportionately impacted by
harsh and exclusionary disciplinary practices. We cannot continue to
deny these schools their fair share. Students with disabilities in
high-poverty schools are the short-changed of the short-changed. These
dollars mean more to them than just about anyone.
conclusion
It is COPAA's hope that in State and district efforts to redesign
and implement ESSA locally, that they will work with our families and
others to use this as an opportunity to focus and target new policies
and valuable resources on the serious and urgent needs of students. By
doing so, COPAA believes ESSA implementation can support students in
what is arguably the most important journey of their formative lives--
their K-12 education. This new responsibility taken on by States can
assure that the success of more students like Bruce Blair and Mariano
are the reality for all of America's children. Thank you for this
opportunity and I look forward to your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Marshall.
Ms. Murguia.
STATEMENT OF JANET MURGUIA, J.D., PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL
COUNCIL OF LA RAZA, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Murguia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Alexander
and Ranking Member Murray, I really want to thank you all and
all members of the committee for the opportunity to appear
before you here today and to discuss a subject that is so
critically important to the civil rights community, this
implementation of ESSA.
For over a decade, I've served as President and CEO of the
National Council of La Raza, NCLR. We're the largest civil
rights and advocacy organization in the United States
representing Hispanics, and we represent over 250 affiliates
which are community, local-based organizations serving Latino
and immigrant populations nationwide.
I was very proud to stand with many of you behind the
President when this important legislation was signed into law.
Thank you for your leadership. We know it has the potential to
benefit 13 million Latino students and 5 million English
learners across the country. For the first time, English
learner students will be included in States' accountability
systems, and States must standardize entrance and exit criteria
for these students. That is a big step.
My remarks focus on Latino educational attainment. I will
share ways that appropriate implementation of ESSA can improve
outcomes for communities of color. Last year, American schools
reached a significant demographic milestone. A majority of
students in our classrooms were students of color. As schools
across the country have become increasingly diverse, Latino
students make up 25 percent of our K through 12 enrollments,
the second largest group of students in schools after white
students.
In part as a result of comparable standardized assessments
and college and career oriented curricula, Latino students are
now graduating at higher rates than ever, and they are
enrolling in postsecondary institutions in record numbers.
However, despite improvements in key areas, inequalities in
access and achievement among Latino and other students of color
remain persistent, and still too many Latino students are not
college ready.
According to the 2015 National Assessment of Educational
Progress, regrettably, nearly half of Latino fourth graders
were reading at below basic levels compared to 21 percent of
whites, a startling statistic given our changing workforce. As
the Department of Education moves forward implementing ESSA, it
is important to recognize the legacy of the original Elementary
and Secondary Education Act in promoting equity for our
Nation's most vulnerable children.
It is imperative that Federal funds are used to supplement
State and local resources for those most in need. Students in
high poverty districts receive nearly 10 percent less in State
and local funds per student than those in the lowest poverty
districts, meaning students in districts most in need of extra
services staff or educational supports, including English
language instruction, are being shortchanged. The future
success of students of color and English learner students in
large part depends on addressing this resource gap.
In addition to furthering equity, ESSA mandates that the
Department of Education issue regulations to hold schools
accountable if groups of students are not meeting challenging
academic standards. While States and districts have flexibility
in designing their accountability plans, the Federal Government
must play a role to ensure progress for these students does not
erode. To this end, the Department of Education should set
clear parameters for State accountability systems and timely
interventions for students falling behind.
Finally, we know the Department of Education cannot fulfill
its mandate alone. Stakeholders from the business and civil
rights communities have a role to play to ensure States and
districts faithfully implement the law's requirements. Already,
Conexion Americas, a Nashville-based affiliate, has organized
partner organizations to jointly engage the Tennessee
Department of Education on the State's accountability and
equity plans, making the case for needs of Latino and immigrant
students.
In the months ahead, these stakeholders will be closely
monitoring the regulatory process to emphasize ESSA's potential
to promote an educational system that is transparent,
accountable, and equitable to further the achievement of all
students.
Thank you, and I look forward to working with all of you as
we implement this important law.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Murguia follows:]
Prepared Statement of Janet Murguia, J.D.
introduction
Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray, and distinguished
members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to appear this
morning on behalf of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), where for
more than a decade I have served as the president and CEO. I thank you
for your leadership to enact bipartisan, comprehensive education
reforms and I appreciate the opportunity to provide expert testimony
today on the implementation of landmark civil rights legislation, the
newly reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This law is
a top priority for the Nation's 55 million Latinos and its successful
implementation is vital to the Nation's future.
NCLR is the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy
organization in the United States, an American institution recognized
in the book Forces for Good as one of the leading nonprofits in the
Nation. We have a network of more than 250 Affiliates--local,
community-based organizations in 41 States and the District of Columbia
that provide education, health, housing, workforce development, and
other services to millions of Americans and immigrants annually.
Many of these Affiliates operate as charter schools, provide early
education, or offer after-school programming or family literacy
services. The programmatic efforts of our Affiliates helps to inform
NCLR's national policy agenda.
NCLR was on the forefront of embracing standards-based education
reforms and has a record of supporting policy grounded in student-based
outcomes that will result in equality of opportunity for all children,
regardless of circumstance. We applauded the passage of the Every
Student Succeeds Act as a much-needed update to our Federal education
law, but recognize that passage was just the first step. It is critical
that ESSA be implemented in a manner consistent with the original
Elementary and Secondary Education Act to ensure its promise for all
students.
My testimony today will focus on the importance of ESSA in closing
the achievement gap for students of color, and the ways in which
implementation can further this goal. I strongly believe that if
implemented appropriately, ESSA has the opportunity to prepare a new
generation of students, including English learners, for a changing and
competitive U.S. workforce.
closing the achievement gap
Last year, American schools reached a significant demographic
milestone: a majority of students in our classrooms were students of
color. As schools across the country have become increasingly diverse,
much of the shift can be attributed to the Latino students who account
for 25 percent of our K-12 enrollments and represent the second-largest
group of students in schools after White students. In 2013, Hispanic 3-
and 4-year-olds alone made up nearly 40 percent of our current pre-K
enrollment.\1\ This fact has prompted the U.S. Department of Education
to project that by 2024, Hispanic students will account for nearly one-
third of total enrollments, from early childhood through grade 12.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Department of Education, ``Digest of Education Statistics
2014,'' Table 202.25, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/
dt14_202.25.asp?current=yes (accessed May 15, 2016).
\2\ U.S. Department of Education, ``Digest of Education Statistics
2013,'' Table 203.60, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/
dt13_203.60.asp (accessed May 15, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to overall population growth, the Latino population is
no longer concentrated in a few States. In 2012, every region in the
United States experienced growth in the share of Latino students in
schools.\3\ In fact, according to a report from Pew Hispanic Center, in
2012, Hispanics made up more than 20 percent of kindergarten classes in
17 States. As a result, policymakers and other leaders in education
must work to ensure that our educational system prepares all children,
including the growing Latino population, for academic success.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. Department of Education, ``Digest of Education Statistics
2014,'' Table 203.50, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/
dt14_203.50.asp (accessed May 15, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the number of Latino students has increased in recent years, the
number of English learner (EL) students has also grown. Currently,
there are nearly 5 million ELs enrolled in schools across the
country.\4\ Nearly 80 percent of EL students are from a Spanish-
speaking background.\5\ In the last decade, the EL population has
increased by 7.1 percent,\6\ predominately in States in the Midwest and
Southeast that traditionally have not had significant EL
populations.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. Department of Education, The Biennial Report to Congress
On the Implementation of the Title III State Formula Grant Program.
Washington, DC, 2012, http://www.ncela.us/files/uploads/3/
Biennial_Report_0810.pdf (accessed May 15, 2016).
\5\ Ibid.
\6\ Ibid.
\7\ NCLR calculation using U.S. Department of Education, ``Digest
of Education Statistics 2013,'' Table 203.50, http://nces.ed.gov/
programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_203.50.asp (accessed May 15, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In part as a result of comparable standardized assessments and
college- and career-oriented curricula, Latino students are now
graduating from high school at higher rates than ever,\8\ their high
school dropout rate is the lowest it has ever been, and they are
enrolling in postsecondary institutions in record numbers.\9\ However,
despite improvements in key areas, inequities in access and achievement
between Latinos and their peers remain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ U.S. Department of Education, ``Digest of Education Statistics
2013,'' Table 219.70, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/
dt13_219.70.asp (accessed May 15, 2016).
\9\ U.S. Department of Education, ``Digest of Education Statistics
2013,'' Table 302.60, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/
dt13_302.60.asp (accessed May 15, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the 2015 National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP), nearly half of Latino fourth graders were reading at below
basic levels compared to only 21 percent of Whites (Chart 1).\10\ These
disparities are even starker for Black students: only 18 percent of
students scored proficient in fourth-grade reading compared to 46
percent of Whites in the same year.\11\ Scores for math show similar
data in disparities among students of color and their White
counterparts. Fewer than one-third of Black, Latino, and Native
American students scored proficient in eighth-grade math,\12\ a
startling statistic given the increased demand for high-skilled jobs in
our Nation's workforce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Daria Hall, ``The Every Student Succeeds Act: Implications for
State and Local Policymakers'' (presentation, The Education Trust,
Washington, DC, March 2016).
\11\ Ibid.
\12\ Ibid.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP Data
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explorer, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/.
As diversity increasingly becomes a fact of our Nation's education
system, it is important that policymakers at all levels of government
assess current supports and services to ensure that the instructional
needs of Latino students and their families are met. Schools must be
prepared to teach a changing population of students, including more
ELs. To address this reality, schools need financial resources to
provide essential professional development for personnel and
educational supports to create an inclusive environment that attends to
the cultural and linguistic needs of Latino and EL students. Teachers,
administrators, and others must have the tools necessary to help these
students achieve college- or career-readiness.
addressing resource inequities
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act was enacted in 1965 to
provide resources for our Nation's must vulnerable children--children
living in poverty with few opportunities available. Consistent with
this goal, it is imperative that Federal funds are used to supplement
State and local resources for those most in need. Yet, a recent
analysis from the Education Trust found that students in high-poverty
districts receive nearly 10 percent less in State and local funds per
student than those in the lowest-poverty districts (Chart 2).\13\
Students in districts most in need of supplemental funds are literally
being short-changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Natasha Ushomirsky and David Williams, ``Funding Gaps 2015:
Too Many States Still Spend Less on Educating Students Who Need the
Most,'' (Washington, DC, The Education Trust, 2015), http://
edtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/FundingGaps2015_TheEduca-
tionTrust1.pdf.
Chart 2: Average State and Local Revenues Per Student, by Poverty
Quartile
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: Education Trust. 2015, Funding Gaps 2015, http://
edtrust.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/09/
FundingGaps2015_TheEducationTrust1.pdf.
When the data is disaggregated by race, patterns emerge wherein
school districts with high numbers of students of color receive less in
local funding than districts serving few students of color. Nationally,
districts serving the most students of color receive roughly $2,000 or
15 percent less in State and local funding per student than districts
serving the fewest.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As enacted, ESSA requires that Federal funds, including funds for
titles I and III, supplement rather than supplant dedicated State and
local funding. At its core, this provision is designed to provide
eligible students in high-poverty districts with extra services, staff,
or educational supports, including English language instruction, that
would not otherwise be available to them.
However, there is a pattern of unequal access to educational
resources for students of color and ELs:
English learners represent 5 percent of high school
students, but only 2 percent of Advanced Placement course
enrollment.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Letter from Catherine E. Lhamon, Assistant Secretary for Civil
Rights, U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, ``Dear
Colleague Letter: Resource Comparability,'' http://www2.ed.gov/about/
offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-resourcecomp-201410.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latino students represent 21 percent of high school
enrollments, but only 12 percent of students enrolled in calculus.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Black and Latino students are 1.5 times more likely to be
taught by novice teachers compared to schools with lower Black and
Latino enrollments.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Ibid.
Lack of access to rigorous coursework and effective teacher
supports inhibit students from reaching their full potential. Unequal
educational resources for students of color undermine the goals of our
civil rights and K-12 law--to provide each student with a high-quality
education regardless of race, ZIP code, or national origin.\18\ \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Every Student Succeeds Act, Public Law 114-95, 114th Cong., 2d
sess. (December 10, 2015).
\19\ Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352, 78 Stat. 241
(July 7, 1964), Title VI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
fulfilling essa's promise
As a result of the leadership on this committee, Congress, and
stakeholders in the civil rights community, ESSA includes landmark
provisions for EL students. For the first time, States must include EL
students in their accountability systems. Moving forward, advocates
must solidify these hard-fought policy victories through extensive
State-level engagement. State plans must include challenging goals for
English language proficiency and find appropriate ways to include
English language proficiency in school ratings systems. States must
also report on ELs with disabilities and long-term ELs so parents and
stakeholders can ensure these students receive needed supports.
Additional resources authorized under the law should be appropriated to
help improve outcomes for EL students. For too long, programs for EL
students, especially in high-poverty districts, have not been
adequately supported.
ESSA provides the Federal Government with appropriate authority to
pursue an education agenda strongly rooted in distributional equity to
improve the educational outcomes for children. For example:
The law requires States to adopt high standards aligned
with credit-bearing coursework at State systems of public higher
education to ensure students are receiving a 21st century education.
States must annually assess students in reading and math
in grades three through eight and once in high school and issue a
science test at each grade span to ensure students are meeting
challenging academic standards.
Critically, the law requires targeted supports and
interventions, including additional resources, for schools if a
subgroup of students is consistently underperforming. This hard-fought
victory for the civil rights and business communities ensures that all
students, regardless of income-level or race or ethnicity, will have
the opportunity for success.
The U.S. Department of Education has an obligation grounded in
ESSA's legislative intent to promulgate robust regulations related to
accountability. Likely, without strong Federal oversight, progress for
students of color seen over the last decade will erode. While the law
cedes significant discretion to States and districts in the design of
their accountability plans, as a counter-measure it also mandates
consultation with key stakeholders including the civil rights
community, the business community, and community-based organizations,
like NCLR Affiliates. For example, Conexion Americas, a Nashville-based
Affiliate, has proactively engaged the Tennessee Department of
Education on the State's accountability and equity plans, making the
case for needs of Latino and immigrant students. Other States and
districts may benefit from this type of stakeholder input.
In addition, the U.S. Department of Education has ample authority
to regulate elements of ESSA to promote the educational advancement of
low-income students. Beyond resource-based rulemaking, the Department
of Education should examine the following:
Making systems work for low-income kids through strong
accountability guidance.
Providing timely interventions for students who are
falling behind academically.
Addressing resource inequities for students in high-
poverty schools and ensuring that students who need additional
supports, like English learners and students with disabilities, can
reach their full potential.
As the Department begins its regulatory process, the goal is always
to ensure a thoughtful focus on educational equity and advancing the
educational achievement for all kids, especially those in vulnerable
situations.
conclusion
Despite clear gains, barriers remain for students of color in
achieving academic success. NCLR believes that poverty and other
barriers to economic mobility will never be eradicated unless children
from communities of color are thriving in our classrooms. Composing
more than 50 percent of today's public school students,\20\ students of
color are a significant presence in the K-12 system. The success of our
Nation's workforce is intrinsically tied to the academic success of
these students. As a result, it is in our Nation's interest to ensure
that all children have the opportunity to obtain an excellent
education, irrespective of the neighborhoods in which they live, their
parents' education level, and their family's income. Targeted Federal
intervention is necessary to set guardrails on State and district
actions to achieve this. Our Nation's students deserve nothing less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Jens Manuel Krogstad and Richard Fry, ``Dept. of Ed. projects
public schools will be `majority-minority' this fall,'' Pew Research
Center, August 18, 2014, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/08/
18/u-s-public-schools-expected-to-be-majority-minority-starting-this-
fall/ (accessed May 15, 2016).
The Chairman. Thank you very much. We'll now move to a
round of 5-minute questions by the Senators, and I'll begin.
Dr. Gordon, you're a scholar of education, finance, and
legislation. Let me ask you this. The language in the law on
supplement and supplant has as its goal to say that a school
district can't use title I money to replace State and local
money, a fairly straightforward proposal. The language, we
thought, was pretty plain and clear.
Why is there a need for regulation of that law? Isn't it
possible just to read the law and know what to do without the
Department elaborating on it through regulation?
Mr. Gordon. Thank you for your question, Senator. I'll read
the law, because there's a lot of questions about the law, and
it's actually----
The Chairman. I only have 5 minutes here.
Mr. Gordon. One sentence. ``The methodology used to
allocate State and local funds to each school receiving
assistance under this part ensures that such school receives
all of the State and local funds it would otherwise receive
were it not receiving assistance under this part,'' and this
part is title I.
To me, that sentence is clear. I have read that sentence
more times than most people. I understand how clarification
could be useful to some people. But, interestingly, this part
of the law already applied to school-wide programs under No
Child Left Behind, and the Department of Education issued
extensive guidance in July 2015 clarifying how to interpret
this with examples----
The Chairman. Let me interrupt just because I have only 5
minutes for questions. If the effect of the proposed
regulation, because it would require title I schools to spend,
on average, an amount that's at least as much or greater than
non-title I schools, would you say that would be an attempt to
equalize spending among schools in a school district? Wouldn't
the effect of doing that attempt to equalize spending?
Mr. Gordon. I'm not an attorney. I'm an economist. To me,
yes.
The Chairman. There's a provision in the law, 1605, that
says, ``Nothing in this title shall be construed to mandate
equalized spending per pupil for a State and local education
agency or school.'' I agree that the proposed regulation
specifically attempts to equalize spending, which could be a
laudable goal. I think Wyoming may do that. It may be the only
State that does that. But the Federal law says you may not do
that.
Let me move to Ms. Weingarten for a moment. You mentioned
in your testimony that you are not only concerned about this
regulation either contradicting or not following specific
provisions of the law, but what that might mean for future
regulations.
My understanding was that the whole discussion, or most of
the discussion, about fixing No Child Left Behind was--the
consensus that we had was we'd keep the federally required
tests, and we'd even expand the amount of data that was used to
let people know what the results of the tests were, but then
what to do about the results of the tests became the
responsibility of those closest to the children, the classroom
teachers, the school boards, the Governors, the legislatures,
and the parents. That's called the accountability system.
What about what the Department is doing with this proposed
regulation worries you about what might happen with future
regulations involving the so-called accountability system?
Ms. Weingarten. Thank you for the question. I share Janet
Murguia's concerns in terms of the accountability system. That
is where most of the real thought needs to go into. What are
the guardrails and what is the flexibility that States should
have to actually think about what constitutes real student
learning these days, and how do we actually help kids get
there, particularly our most vulnerable kids?
The fact that the Department seems to be doing same old,
same old, in terms of trying to rewrite history regarding
supplement, not supplant as opposed to really thinking about
how do we ensure that there's flexibility that really looks at
what kids need through the lens of the practitioners, is what
is concerning all of us--issues like the weights, the
definition of significant, the definition of evidence, what's
going to happen in terms of the 95 percent participation rate.
So it is whittling away the good will that all of us have to
actually helping all kids succeed, particularly our most
vulnerable kids.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. As I said at the beginning of this hearing,
ESEA is fundamentally a civil rights law to provide all
children access to a fair and equitable high quality education.
ESSA maintains that commitment by requiring States to annually
classify each school where any subgroup of students is
consistently underperforming and districts to take meaningful
action in these schools to improve student achievement. I agree
with the civil rights community, including those who advocate
for the rights of students with disabilities, that without
strong regulations, our Nation's most vulnerable students could
be ignored or left behind.
Ms. Marshall, I wanted to ask you if you can speak to why a
regulation should focus on performance of individual groups of
students rather than on comparing students to each other within
the same school. And can you explain why that's particularly
important for students with disabilities?
Ms. Marshall. Thank you, Senator Murray, for your
commitment to equality and protection of the civil rights of
students with disabilities. Students with disabilities are
general education students first. It's imperative that they be
compared against the same State standards that every other
student is compared against.
We want to make sure that they have a fair and equitable
opportunity to both access and to benefit from their education.
In order to find out how they're doing in that regard as
compared to peers at their grade level, we have to look at the
subgroup or individual scores against the State standard.
We want to make sure that we know how they're doing in
regards to the possibility of getting a diploma. Research is
very clear. High expectations equal being further in life.
Having no diploma basically equals lack of outcomes, no jobs,
sitting at home. So the stakes could not be higher for our
students.
Senator Murray. For Ms. Garcia and Ms. Weingarten, just
yesterday was the 62d anniversary of the landmark Brown v.
Board decision. GAO released a report detailing the
relationship between resegregation and resource equity in our
Nation's schools. In particular, GAO found that schools with
high percentages of low-income and minority students are less
likely to have access to advanced course work and more likely
to experience high rates of exclusionary discipline.
ESSA requires any school in which one or more subgroups is
performing at the level of the bottom 5 percent to address
resource inequities and includes significant new reporting
requirements related to resource equity. I want to ask both of
you: How critical is the issue of resource equity, particularly
in light of how far we still have to go in terms of the promise
of Brown v. Board?
Ms. Eskelsen Garcia. For all educators, resource equity is
the game changer here. It's what we haven't been measuring.
It's why so many of the comments today were about let's not go
back to a numbers game where we pretend that if we hit this
number, it must mean that we have equitable opportunity to
learn.
You can be measuring things on that dashboard. The
dashboard is absolutely crucial for us, because when you have
that collaboration between the professional educator that knows
the kids, the parents, the administrators, the elected school
board members, saying, ``Here's what we believe will be the
game changer''--how many of our students are graduating from
high school having already earned college credit? You can
measure that.
That's an opportunity to learn. That's a program that could
look very different if you're in a rural community or an urban
community, if you have a community college, if you have AP
classes, international baccalaureate programs. We want to
actually have that dashboard measure the real services and
supports that those kids have. We believe that that is how
you're going to move the needle.
Senator Murray. Ms. Weingarten, on the issue of resource
equity?
Ms. Weingarten. Resource equity is absolutely essential. I
would actually go a step further, which is not covered by this
law, which is resource adequacy. We need to actually level the
playing field for kids, and there are many, many times that
vulnerable kids actually need a lot more, and that is baked
into some of the title I formulas. What happens is we have to
make sure that there's not counterproductive efforts here.
Adequacy and equity are essential to leveling the playing
field. That includes a much broader view than just actual
dollars. It includes--what are the programs? What do we need to
do in terms of dual-immersion? What do we need to do in terms
of AP? What do we need to do to ensure that kids that I taught
at Clara Barton High School, which was a title I school, could
actually compete in debates against kids in Scarsdale High
School, which was a very well-funded school? That requires a
lot of thinking about how do you actually contour schools to
the needs of your students.
Senator Murray. I'm out of time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murray.
Senator Enzi.
Statement of Senator Enzi
Senator Enzi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'd like to
start by stating that the actions of the U.S. Department of
Education that they've taken over the last few months on a
number of issues is of grave concern to me and the people that
I represent.
I want to thank all of you that have testified. You have
provided some great information both in the printed testimony
and what you've said.
I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for the
tremendous leadership that they've provided so that this
committee could have an influence on changing the law in a way
that the President signed and that we're now trying to get
done. Now is not the time to implement the law differently.
It's important that we implement it as it was written, and
we're in charge of presiding over that, and this is a good
start. It's not the time to bring up things that were not
agreed to and change the outcome through executive action.
When I first got here, I had a principal who wanted to see
where all the reports went that he had to do. He got leave from
his school district to come back and spend a semester here, and
he spent his time over at the Department of Education. When he
reported back to me, he said, ``You know, they take a look at
every one of those forms. They make sure that every single
blank has a logical answer. If it doesn't, they send it back.
And then when it's completed, they file it and nobody looks at
it.'' We've been in the process of eliminating some of those in
the meantime.
This particular supplement, not supplant sounds like a new
opportunity to get new reports that will contain a lot of
information that may not be used or could be used
detrimentally. I do know that the devastating effects that
could be in the proposed changes--that it could have on States
such as Wyoming. Wyoming's Constitution, as the chairman
mentioned, calls for a complete and uniform system of public
instruction, one that mandates the equitable allocation of
resources among all school districts in the State.
Wyoming doesn't need the Federal Government telling it how
to provide equalized education for all students. We've been
doing it since 1889 and taking it to court regularly to make
sure that that would happen. It's not just the dollars. It's
the supplies, and it's even the school buildings that have to
be equal.
I'm hearing from my State that the proposed action by the
Department of Education would cause the forced transfer of
public school teachers across our county and maybe even the
State. I'm the father of a public school teacher and the
grandfather of public school students, and there's no reason
that the Federal Government should be interfering with where my
daughter chooses to teach or where my grandchildren get their
instruction.
Dr. Evers, can you tell me how this will impact frontier
areas such as Wyoming? We're the least populated State in the
Nation. I understand the forced transfer of teachers sounds OK
to individuals in this administration that don't understand
States like Wyoming or Wisconsin. It seems to me that rural and
frontier States will be hit the hardest with such an outcome.
As the superintendent of a rural State, can you tell me what
kind of an impact this will have?
Mr. Evers. Absolutely. As an aside, one of the major issues
in rural Wisconsin--and I'm sure in rural Wyoming--is who's
going to teach in those schools. We're having an
extraordinarily severe teacher shortage, and it can be blamed
on a whole number of issues. I have my own opinions on that.
But when we take the ability for local school districts,
rural or local, and confine the way they hire people in a way
that isn't going to help kids necessarily, and we try to--and I
get the idea that it's important to have some transparency
around equitable distribution of money. This just doesn't get
it. That's the main thing.
Rural districts have a very difficult time to begin with in
hiring staff members. It would amplify that concern, in that it
would take away principals and superintendents and those that
do the hiring to really conflate a number of different issues
that really doesn't matter, and that's the equalness of the
distribution.
It's going to make their jobs more difficult to find high
quality teachers. That's the bottom line. For rural Wisconsin
and Wyoming, that's a huge issue. In rural areas, teachers are
the main backbone of those communities, and we have to make
sure that we get the best people in those positions.
Senator Enzi. Thank you. I'll be providing you with some
written questions regarding the negotiated rulemaking panel
that you're on.
I want to thank Dr. Gordon for the specificity of
accounting consequences that you had in your testimony and in
what you said, and I'll be providing some more questions
regarding that. I know that those have a tendency to put the
audience to sleep, but they're really important to what we're
doing. Thank you.
The Chairman. We have one accountant on the committee,
which is Senator Enzi.
Thank you, Senator Enzi.
Senator Bennet.
Statement of Senator Bennet
Senator Bennet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to the panelists for being here today and for
everything you do for our schools and for our kids. It's been
said today that this Federal law is a civil rights law, and I
believe that. What that means for me as we sit here is thinking
about the millions of children that are marooned in public
schools, rural and urban, in America today that are schools
that nobody on this panel would ever send one of our own kids
or grandkids to.
It's the reason I worked so hard to try to close the
comparability loophole. We didn't get there. We did get
important reporting language on reporting actual salaries and
other costs. I think that's important because it will equip
teachers and parents with information they need to be able to
make the case going forward about how to create a system of
public education that actually will work in America for kids
living in poverty. That won't be done by the people on this
panel. It's going to be done by all of you and the people that
you represent all across America.
Let me start with one question. We are one of three
countries in the OECD who spend more money on wealthy students
than we do on poor students. Is there anybody on the panel who
will defend that system in terms of closing the achievement gap
in the United States? In other words, do you expect that if we
continue to spend more money on wealthy kids than we do on poor
kids that we will have any hope of closing America's
achievement gap?
[No verbal response.]
Senator Bennet. It was said today--there was testimony
today, Mr. Chairman--I think we spend $620 billion all in on
education in America, and if you're running a decent school
district, 80 percent of that ought to be spent on teachers, or
more, in my view. Testimony from my fellow superintendent today
was that, ``there is no relationship between salary level and
teacher effectiveness.'' Does anybody want to defend that?
There is no relationship between the expenditure of 80 percent
of what we spend and effectiveness of teachers.
Randi.
Ms. Weingarten. Of course, there's a relationship. I won't
speak for who is an amazing superintendent in Des Moines. But
there is much evidence that there is a relationship between the
experience of teachers and the stability of schools, and,
frankly, part of what we're trying to do in schools that are
struggling is how do we nurture and secure great teachers to
stay at those schools. Both in a macro and a micro way, there
are real correlations here.
I think what my colleague was saying is that the dollar for
dollar piece that the Department is proposing doesn't get you
to the equity issues that you have spent your life, Senator----
Senator Bennet. You as well. What I'm saying is whether the
Department ends up with this rule or doesn't end up with this
rule, the reality is the way we are spending resources in this
country, I'm the first to say--maybe I'll be the second or
third, because the two of you are here--the first to say we
should pay teachers more in this country. It's a disgrace what
we pay teachers in the United States.
But how we pay them really is important. I don't think we
should be having people come here 10 years from now and say,
``There is no correlation between how we pay teachers and their
effectiveness.'' I think we need to work together to make sure
that's not the case, because then you can't make the case that
we should have more resources.
It worries me that we continue to come here and tinker
around the edges, and the reality is that if we don't have a
solution to the kids that are showing up to kindergarten having
heard 30 million fewer words than their more affluent peers, if
kids don't have a choice of a school that any of us would send
our kid to, and if higher education continues to accelerate in
its cost so that if you're in the bottom quartile of income
earners, to go to college it costs you 85 percent of your net
income, whereas if you're in the top income, it's 15 percent--
you add all that together, and our system of education is
reinforcing the income inequality that we have and the
opportunity gap that we have, rather than liberating people
from it.
That's an invitation from me to anybody on this panel to
figure out how we go forward so that 10 years from now, we're
not sitting here seeing these kinds of results. That's going to
happen in America, not here.
Ms. Murguia. Can I just comment on that, Senator?
Senator Bennet. I have 7 seconds left, but please do.
Ms. Murguia. It took an extraordinary amount of effort for
us all to 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, we're going to have
to do the same thing, local district by local school district,
State by State.
For those of us who are very invested in seeing that equity
outcome that we know is so important and consistent with our
American values, we believe that that flexibility is there now
that we've 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.
I feel in many ways our work has just begun as we look at
how we're going to try to do this with that flexibility in
mind. But I want a guarantee of strong, appropriate Federal
oversight as we move forward.
Senator Bennet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Bennet.
Senator Isakson.
Senator Murkowski, I made a mistake. Senator Murkowski is
next. I've done that once before. I don't want to do it twice,
Johnny. Excuse me.
Senator Murkowski. Actually, Mr. Chairman, I will defer to
Senator Isakson, as I just came back in and I'm just finding
out what has already been discussed. I will defer to Senator
Isakson.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
Senator Isakson.
Statement of Senator Isakson
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Lisa. I appreciate that.
Thank you to Ranking Member Murray.
I want to commend the Chairman and the Ranking Member on
their leadership on ESEA and the Every Student Succeeds and the
point we're at today. I think it's going to be a great
empowerment for local boards of education and for the State
boards of education to carry out the educational mandate in
their State.
Throughout the debate--and I'm one of the last remaining
people that wrote No Child Left Behind, so I will still readily
admit that. It was a great act for 6 years, but it went through
7 years where it wasn't reauthorized, and it became an
impediment rather than an asset because it became harder and
harder to make adequate yearly progress, and the ceiling got
too low, and people ended up being put into non-performing
schools that shouldn't have been put in that category.
The thing I focused on the most were children with
disabilities and the assessment of children with disabilities.
I'm married to a special ed teacher. When I chaired the State
Board of Education in Georgia, I worked hard on psycho-
education and our kids with disabilities, learning
disabilities, to try and provide as much quality rules as we
could and quality education.
One of the things we had was a 1 percent exception, I guess
you'd call it, for kids with that kind of disability to have an
alternative assessment rather than the mandated test under No
Child Left Behind. We rewrote in the Every Student Succeeds Act
the 1 percent cap stayed for the State, but it was overruled by
a regulation that said that the State board could not keep a
local system from determining if a kid needed an alternative
assessment based on the IEP or the Individuals with
Disabilities in Education Act to ensure there was more
flexibility.
The 1 percent cap really doesn't apply because the State
and the local education agencies--IDEA governs and the IEP is
the governing document to determine whether the alternative
assessment is necessary or not. As two superintendents, Mr.
Ahart and Dr. Evers, would you tell me how that's working and
how you intend to carry that out in your respective systems?
Mr. Evers. That was an issue of lots of discussion, if the
negotiated regulations work. And it is. ESSA has flipped the
equation in that. Schools aren't held to the 1 percent. States
are. I think it's an obligation as a State to make sure that we
don't, as a State, exceed the 1 percent.
Asking for a waiver for any particular district, we have to
go through a relatively rigorous process to make sure it
doesn't happen. It's going to be about providing technical
assistance to those districts that exceed 1 percent, and we'll
do that. It's our responsibility. In the past, it's been a
local responsibility, but it's clear that this committee
determined that the State needs to be accountable for that,
which we will be. It's something that we take very seriously.
Senator Isakson. Dr. Ahart.
Mr. Ahart. Thank you, Senator. My district probably has a
bigger challenge in meeting that 1 percent mark simply because
of some of the specialized programming that we have for
medically fragile and severely and profound disabled students.
We always fall under that 1 percent mark.
This is another example where it's very difficult at the
Federal level to set benchmarks that translate into an
equitable measure at the State and local level. One of the
things that came up during regulations negotiations was just
this issue, and there's certainly what seems to be a bit of a
paradox there. The State can't go over 1 percent, but
individual districts can.
I would argue 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. I think with good guidance from the State and the State
offices working closely with the local education agencies, I
don't see this as being particularly problematic.
Senator Isakson. That's good to hear, because Chairman
Alexander made a point of making sure that we got out of the
national school board business and empowered the local and
State school boards. And this is one of those areas where if
the Federal agency decides to enforce its side of that 1
percent, it would be negative for the local systems and the
State. We want to empower you to be in control of education,
and we appreciate what you do for our kids.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Isakson.
Senator Warren.
Statement of Senator Warren
Senator Warren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We have spent a lot of time today talking about the
financial accountability provisions in the new education law
and about the Department of Education's plans for enforcing
these provisions. Now, we've 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 they're 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 I--and I don't have
a poster, but I'll read it--to provide all children significant
opportunity to receive a fair, equitable, and high quality
education. And I underline all, not just children in wealthy
districts.
Ms. Weingarten, let me start there. Why do you believe that
it is important for Federal law to require equity and adequacy
in how education money is spent?
Ms. Weingarten. ESSA is a civil rights law, and it is about
trying to make sure that there's opportunity for all children.
If that is the case, equity is absolutely essential in order to
get to excellence.
But as I was saying to Senator Murray earlier, what we're
seeing locally is that we have to actually have a fight for
adequacy, too, because it's not simply, what is equal. In order
to level the playing field, we actually have to give our
vulnerable kids more. As Senator Bennet said, we have to flip
what's going on in this country. What the law does is it starts
us on that path, but it's 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.
Senator Warren. 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?
Ms. Weingarten. I am very glad, Senator Warren, you asked
the question in that way, because the entire testimony, we've
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 there is no
diversion.
They have that in three different ways. It's not just the
title I funding formulas that focus on concentration of
poverty--and I think Dr. Gordon is probably better at this than
I would ever be--but it's the maintenance of effort issues and
provisions, and it's the SNS provisions, as were clarified
several months beforehand.
They do have that authority. They need that authority. Part
of what we're concerned about is making sure that it's not
overreach so that they can actually do their job.
Senator Warren. Good. Let me then turn to that part of it.
They have the authority, but how can the Department enforce
these provisions in a manner that doesn't result in the
unintended consequences that you and others have discussed?
Ms. Weingarten. That, frankly, should have been what
consumed the time of the Neg Reg committee, with all due
respect. As Janet 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. 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. Then, after
that, one looks at what you do next.
Right now, to move to some one-size-fits-all enforcement
mechanism that's not even allowed by the law seems not right.
Senator Warren. All right. Not in the right direction.
Thank you. And I will ask more 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 doesn't 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.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Warren.
I'd like to say to the witnesses that I have an unavoidable
conflict at 11:40, and I will need to leave. But Senator
Cassidy has agreed to chair the remainder of the hearing. I
want to thank each of you for coming and for your excellent
written testimony and for what you've said this morning.
Senator Murkowski.
Statement of Senator Murkowski
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. There was
considerable deliberation, long-term fact finding. But the
judge came back and said that the problem wasn't money, because
each rural district got about the same per pupil, but what they
were seeing, again, were very different outcomes among them and
among the individual schools.
What the judge found was that the issue was the degree of
State support and its effectiveness within different
communities, or perhaps a lack thereof within the communities.
So it was local support for schools. It was community-school
relationships. It was effective and culturally relevant
curriculum. It was teacher and principal effectiveness.
The data really demonstrated that this was what mattered
here, not that money doesn't 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.
Then back in 2012, there was a settlement, because there
was still an argument about whether or not adequate financial
funding was being provided. In 2012, we see a settlement where
the Department of Education and the State agreed to create
programs to support pre-K, 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 dollar
for dollar comparison.
I guess I'd throw it out to anyone here on the panel. Ms.
Eskelsen Garcia, I wasn't 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.
Can you all comment on this situation in Alaska and what
our State's courts found?
Ms. Eskelsen Garcia. I want to begin by saying I was a Utah
teacher, but I was a Fairbanks, AK, student at Ryan Junior
High.
Senator Murkowski. There you go. A great middle school
there.
Ms. Eskelsen Garcia. I know what it's like to go to school
when the stars are still out in the middle of the day. I want
to tell you that the best teaching assignment I ever had was
the Salt Lake homeless shelter, because of 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 2 weeks. There were nutrition programs that they had.
I was never alone. I had the support I needed, a
professional who could deal with sometimes mental health issues
that that family had. I understand when you say you do need--
every school needs the technology, the textbooks, the facility.
You need the stuff.
You also need to deal with the reality of that child's
life, and some children come to us with so many more needs that
aren't met in their home, in their community. They come from
homes where they don't have disposable income sometimes to take
a child to the dentist. So that child walks into our classroom
in pain, and we have to do something about it, whether we've
been given the resources to do anything about it or not.
For me, it is more than just 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?''
In Utah, we're 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're
given, then we try and leverage that into something more
meaningful and supporting those children.
That's why we want to say which services, which supports,
which programs--it may cost a different number of dollars in
this community than in this community. For instance, I keep
using support as--how can we make sure our kids graduate from
high school having already earned college credit? What would
that look like? It might look like something very different if
you're in Nome than if you're in Anchorage, where you have a
university right there, and another might look like something
online.
But what we want is that power of professionals working in
collaboration in each community to design something that makes
sense for that community. If what you're measuring--do you have
the ability; do these children have the opportunity to earn
college credit before they graduate from high school; how many
of them are doing that; how many of them used graduation day as
a springboard into higher education? Describe what you're
trying to accomplish and then be creative about designing
something that meets the needs of that specific school
community.
Ms. Marshall. Senator Murkowski, may I respond briefly?
Senator Murkowski. I'm over my time, but if the chairman
allows it.
Ms. Marshall. What jumped out at me that you said initially
about the case was that the judge ruled that there was already
a per-pupil equality in the expenditures. It sounded like
that's what you said, that he said it wasn't the money that
necessarily made the difference.
For us, that equality is important, because I've been in a
lot of schools on both ends of the spectrum. And when you walk
in the front door, and the starkness of the resources hits you
in the face, I cannot imagine how adding some extra dollars
there actually equals supplement when the scale is so tipped.
Ms. Murguia. I would just add a point. We know right now
that black and Latino students are 1.5 times more likely to be
taught by novice teachers. Is there a dollar for dollar
solution that's going to directly address that in every part of
the country and in every district and in every State? I'm not
sure. But I do know that a zip code should not dictate the
resources available to students.
We need to make sure that there is an opportunity for the
voices of those communities most affected and impacted by the
plans that are going to be set forth at the State level to be
represented. For us, having affiliates--and we have affiliates
in Alaska--to have that voice heard so that they can be
represented in those State plans is going to be an important
part of getting to an outcome that, hopefully, achieves that
equity that is at the heart of the original legislation and I
believe is still embodied in this legislation.
It's the strong Federal oversight role that is going to
ultimately be the counterbalance to making sure that that is
set forward in a manner that's consistent with what we've
intended.
Senator Cassidy [presiding]. Thank you. I didn't mean to
cut you off, but----
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I would
like to add that within the Alaska court, the supreme court
there, the funding may have been equally adequate, but the
problem was that the results are not. Again, when you're trying
to measure this dollar for dollar, this is where the discussion
gets even more intriguing. I thank you for the additional
allowance of time for others to answer and the opportunity to
speak.
Senator Cassidy. Senator Casey.
Statement of Senator Casey
Senator Casey. Mr. Chairman, thanks very much. In the
interest of time, let me first say thank you to the panel for
being here and for your good work on this legislation. I'll
submit a question for the record, which will focus on NEA, AFT,
and La Raza. But I do, in my very limited time, want to direct
a question to Ms. Marshall regarding the 1 percent cap on
assessments for students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities. I guess maybe two, if I can get to that.
It's good that we have this win, that we codified an
important policy and made it law. I just wanted to ask you how
do you think--in terms of how it's going to work, how will this
policy, which is a continuation of prior policy, help special
education teams, help schools, help school districts making
that very critical decision about which children should take
which tests?
Ms. Marshall. Thank you, Senator Casey, and I want to thank
you for your leadership on this issue. It was a huge win for us
to get this cap, and we are the students that are represented
around the table at the IEPs whose teams are making these
decisions, all too often for whom there is a lack of
presumption of competence. Before there was such a cap, we saw
untold numbers of students taken off access to the general
education curriculum as early as second grade, and that's just
unconscionable.
We think this cap is important. As someone alluded to
earlier or stated earlier, it's adequate. We have far more
fights for students trying to stay on the regular assessment
and graduate than we have who are not allowed to take an
alternate assessment. That's critical.
I think the Neg Reg process put up some important
guardrails to make sure that States and teams are asking the
right questions and that they're very careful not to put
students on there on the basis of their disability or on the
basis of their past test performance, but that they push harder
to make sure those students have what they need to succeed.
Senator Casey. I wanted to ask you because I know your work
validates this principle, and I think the policy we were able
to get done in this bill validates that students with
disabilities have a lot of ability, and that's an important
validation. I want to ask you how can we ensure that districts
and States implement this guidance to ensure that all students
are held to these very high expectations? What would you hope
would happen?
Ms. Marshall. In our experience, the clearer the
guidelines, the brighter the lines, the easier it is for the
families to enforce the law, and it falls on their shoulders.
That's why we appreciate the Federal oversight. We have needed
it repeatedly. We continue to need it to this day to make sure
our kids have access to what they need.
In response to what Senator Enzi was saying before about
the Department of Ed and the check boxes, we rely on that data.
We need it. That's how we can show how our kids are being
shortchanged and what they need to be able to get equitable
access to receive the benefit they deserve from an appropriate
and excellent education, just like any other student.
Senator Casey. Thanks very much. I appreciate it.
Senator Cassidy. Thank you, Senator Casey.
Statement of Senator Cassidy
Senator Cassidy. I may take a little contrarian viewpoint
to some.
Ms. Marshall, you mentioned the 1 percent cap. Let's go
back to those dyslexic children. I don't think there's any
school district in the Nation which screens for dyslexia at
grade one. And if anyone knows of such a district, please let
me know.
We have 20 percent of the population dyslexic, and at some
point, somewhere between third and fourth grade, children--a
typical child begins to learn to read, whereas the dyslexic
child is still learning to read. I think I got that right.
We're going to have a standardized test in fourth grade which
assumes fluency, and yet that child who is dyslexic is still
learning to decode and is not a fluent reader. In a sense we
have program failure.
At fourth grade, we're going to test 20 percent of the
children in a way which they are not yet ready to be tested by.
I suppose if you have a 1 percent cap, let's imagine that in
the future, some progressive school district would actually
screen all the children and find that 20 percent. Would we
still test them with the same standardized test, knowing by
grade four that they will still not be reading adequately? For
some reason, that doesn't make sense to me.
Dr. Evers, do you have any thoughts on that?
Mr. Evers. I can tell you in my home, we do screening for
children entering school, and it's----
Senator Cassidy. For dyslexia?
Mr. Evers. It's a more general screening, but it has to do
with understanding and decoding skills and skills relating to
phonics and things like that. I'm sure some of those children
are caught or captured by that screening. We have a State law
that, at third grade, if students are requiring additional help
because they're not at grade level in reading, that school
districts have to develop a plan for them, whether it's special
ed or not.
I can answer the question generally. I believe our State is
working hard to address the needs of dyslexic children. But if
your question is do we do a screening specifically for
dyslexia, the answer would be no.
Senator Cassidy. I haven't found one that does, actually.
Most rely upon, sort of, the child not doing well. But by grade
three, the horse is out of the barn. If the child is not doing
well by grade three, typically, that deficiency is going to
persist. If we were able to screen these children, and knowing
that they've not yet learned to read fluently, would we still
give them the same standardized test at grade four that the
other children are receiving, even if we know they have not yet
learned to read fluently?
Ms. Marshall, would you advocate doing so?
Ms. Marshall. Yes, Senator Casey, I would actually----
Senator Cassidy. I'm--Casey is the right----
Ms. Marshall. Oh, Cassidy. I'm sorry.
Senator Cassidy. That's OK. My mother-in-law gets the same
mistake. So don't worry about it.
Ms. Marshall. I don't have my glasses on, so without that
accommodation, I'm in trouble, and that actually gets to my
point.
We absolutely agree that students with dyslexia are not
being screened, are not being taught, and the teachers don't
have the training they need. In fact, I will broaden that to
say that all students with disabilities who this law protects,
as well as every other student, have trouble reading and are
not getting the services that they need to succeed.
We often hear the argument that you have put forth around
not taking the test. But it is our belief, again, that we need
to know where students are against the standards. We should not
throw them in there without the accommodations, and we should
make sure----
Senator Cassidy. Now, what would you say----
Ms. Marshall [continuing]. If you could just let me
finish----
Senator Cassidy. But I have limited time. What would you
say is an accommodation for the child who has not yet learned
to read?
Ms. Marshall. It differs for each child. But they need to
be able to have the accommodations and the supports that they
use in the classroom to learn when they take the test, and that
is of grave concern to us right now. We find that students are
not having that accessibility. They have to be tested on the
content, not on their ability to take the test.
Senator Cassidy. Let's get granular, not just conceptual,
but granular. If the child has not learned to decode, and the
child does not read fluently, taking a test which presumes
fluency, that child is going to fail, period. Do we really want
to make that child take that particular test, as opposed to
another test which may--a different test which may, indeed,
adjust for the fact that the child has not yet learned to read
fluently?
Ms. Marshall. I can't make those decisions. It's on an
individual basis with each student. But as a general principle,
we want our kids to count, and we want them to be part of the
tests that all kids are taking to see where they are on grade
level according to the State standards.
Senator Cassidy. But we would know that these 20 percent of
the kids, despite whatever their IQ is, they're going to read
less--by definition, dyslexia is a disconnection between the
two--those children are going to read less well.
Ms. Marshall. But we've gotten rid of the punitive nature.
The intention of the tests, the reason to take them, is to know
where the students are and to give them the appropriate
services and supports to move them forward.
Senator Cassidy. I'm not sure that we came to a common
mind, but I'm out of time.
Senator Murphy.
Statement of Senator Murphy
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to all the panelists for your time today. I have
one general comment, and then one specific question for, our
favorite target today, Ms. Marshall.
Here's my general comment. I think Ms. Weingarten got it
right when she made it clear that this law is a civil rights
law, first and foremost. The Federal Government is in the
business of education policy because we're in the business of
civil rights. There's no reason for us to be writing Federal
education policy if it's not, at the foundation, about equal
opportunity for disabled kids and poor kids and minority kids,
and I thought your answers to Senator Warren's questions were
spot on.
But that's a real uncomfortable thing for us to talk about,
especially an uncomfortable thing for us to talk about when
we're sitting in front of a bunch of educators and
superintendents and State officials, because what we're saying
is that without some Federal requirement that kids of color or
poor kids or disabled kids be treated fairly, local political
dynamics are going to accrue to the detriment of those kids,
and that if you don't have a Federal requirement, ultimately,
those kids are not going to get a fair shake.
It becomes a very difficult thing for us to talk about
here. But it's been at the foundation of our Federal commitment
to civil rights and at the foundation of our Federal education
law for decades.
I do think it's important and I have since the beginning of
the drafting process for this law to have some strong
accountability requirements and some high expectations for
schools and for kids. I don't think it ends at the text of the
law. I think there's a very important and appropriate role for
the Department of Education to play in setting the guardrails
for the financial accountability, as Senator Warren was talking
about, or this accountability system.
I understand, Dr. Gordon, the ways in which a requirement
to spend more money on poor kids may occasionally not work to
their benefit. But I think in the aggregate, if you're spending
more money on title I schools, that's going to help students in
title I schools, even if maybe it provides some perverse
disincentives here and there.
On accountability, I think we've got a good accountability
section in this bill. But we've got to make sure that the
interventions that are being used to try to turn around schools
are not just whitewash. If a school is failing, it's not enough
just to paint the front of the school green. You've got to
actually do something that's meaningful.
It's uncomfortable, because I don't doubt the willingness
of school districts and States to try to be partners in this.
But the regulations are important to make sure that we've got
some basic guardrails to make sure that what is happening to
make these schools better for these populations is based on
what we know works and what we know doesn't work.
I appreciate the conversation here. But I'm interested in
the Department of Education continuing to move forward on
regulations that are in the spirit of the accountability
sections of our bill, and I don't think there's a lot of
disagreement on that.
Here's my specific question to you, Ms. Marshall, and it's
on a narrow issue that is a passion of mine, and that's the use
of seclusion and restraints in our schools. According to the
Department of Education's latest civil rights data collection
in 2011 and 2012, 70,000 students across the country were
physically restrained, and 37,000 of them were secluded, and I
think that's the tip of the iceberg.
I don't think we understand how deep and broad this problem
is, and I'll take ownership of it in Connecticut. We've got a
problem. Scream rooms being used to throw kids into so that
they can scream out their problems so they're not a disruption
to everybody else. We included language in this bill,
bipartisan language, that would require State plans to address
the use of what the bill calls aversive behavioral
interventions, which really means seclusion and restraint.
What do you want to see from the Department of Education
when it comes to the guidance that they give to schools on how
they attack this issue of the overuse of both seclusion and
restraint?
Ms. Marshall. Thank you very much, Senator Murphy, for
asking me this question, because it's also a passion of mine,
and also for your leadership in ensuring that that clause was
added to the law. There were many tears and dances of joy when
this portion of the law was included to make sure that there
are positive school climates and that we need to take steps--
schools need to unequivocally stop this abuse of students in
our schools.
Secluding a student in a locked room from which they cannot
escape is known to be one of the most torturous things you can
do to another person. Why are we doing that to our kids?
Restraint can only be used in emergency situations. The
research is clear. It's used for power and control on little
tiny kids. That must stop. I'd be happy to submit more comments
for the record.
I would like to say one more thing, which is I spent years
as a positive behavior support specialist in the school dealing
with the kids with the most challenging behaviors to keep them
in school and keep them learning. If you're in a seclusion room
or you've got four adults sitting on top of you, what are you
or the other students who are watching this learning?
The scream rooms in Connecticut were called that by the
other students, because that's what they heard, kids in a room
screaming. Imagine that effect on a little child when they're
trying to learn. That's a life lesson no child in this country
should be subjected to.
What I know has made the difference is not money. It is
about training. It is about the belief and the confidence of
the teacher to keep all kids safe, the support of the
principals and the other people in the building to make sure
they have those services around the kids who challenge the
most. But it can be done positively, and it can be done without
those barbaric practices.
Senator Murphy. No teacher ever wants to engage in that
kind of practice.
Ms. Marshall. Right.
Senator Murphy. You are right. This is about supporting
plans to create the climates and atmospheres in schools to make
sure that those situations never arise.
Mr. Chairman, one additional caveat to my initial comment.
I want to make the point that this conversation about
accountability is also uncomfortable because we often place the
burden on accountability simply on the superintendents and the
administrators and the teachers. When you look at the
difference in educational outcomes that still persist among
different groups, it often has to do with all sorts of factors
that exist outside of schools.
This conversation about accountability that, of course, I
think is incredibly important is not a conversation just about
what happens inside the school. It's a conversation about what
is happening in systems at large that are controlled by,
frankly, folks way above the pay grade of teachers and
administrators and superintendents.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cassidy. Senator Whitehouse.
Statement of Senator Whitehouse
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman Cassidy. I would
like, first, to make the point that under title I, we said
quite clearly that a school must get--if I quote the text
correctly--the funds it would otherwise receive under title I.
We did not say it should get the same funds as other schools
receive. We could have said that, but there wouldn't have been
agreement on it, and the law is fairly clear.
What worries me is that if we get into a wrangle over this
regulation re-reading the law as the latter statement rather
than the former statement, which seems to me, as a lawyer, a
reasonably clear statement, then we're going to start to get
distracted from all of the areas that we baked into this law
where there was common agreement that there is a great
opportunity for reform and innovation.
One of the keys was to open up curriculum. We had
curriculum get slaughtered in title I schools, because
everything that didn't teach to the test got thrown overboard
for fear that the boat would sink if the testing came back
poorly. That was a terrible disservice to the students in those
schools. We set up innovative dashboard opportunities for
people to report in much more effectively on how schools are
doing so that there can be real accountability, not ersatz
accountability.
We have opened up the realm for interventions in failing
and struggling schools so that there's a lot more opportunity
to bring different perspectives and different opportunities to
bear. We've opened up the opportunity for innovation schools to
exist.
There are bright green lights in this bill saying, ``Let's
do this better.'' To insist on driving down a street that has a
red light on it doesn't seem to me to be constructive, and I
hope that it does not take us into a place where we're not
taking advantage of all the green lights that this bill clearly
lays out.
Teachers, school administrators, pretty much everybody in
Rhode Island is very excited about the new tools that this bill
gives us. If we can avoid driving into this particular ditch
and instead focus on the areas where there really is very, very
significant bipartisan solid and legally founded opportunity
for reform and innovation, boy, I'd like to encourage that.
That said, it is absolutely clear and bipartisan and has
always been the case that nobody wants to see Federal title I
money come in and provide an excuse to school districts or
States to quietly ease money out of those schools and out of
those districts to the favored and wealthier districts knowing
that title I was going to come in and make up the gap.
If the equality of expenditure rule is not the one that we
should be following, I would ask that each of the witnesses let
us know what rule they would recommend that the Department of
Education follow, because I don't want to end up in a situation
in which no regulation ever--nobody would agree with any
regulation of this because people are waiting to be against
anything and everything, no matter what it is.
I think it is important that there be some affirmative
statement from folks who are here about what they think the
regulation should look like, not just what it should not look
like. I only have about a minute, but I do see at least one
hand up.
And let me make it, Mr. Chairman, a question for the record
so that anybody can fill in if they'd like to in writing.
Ms. Eskelsen Garcia. I know what my NEA members think is
the standard. There's one thing about inter-district equality
and equity. It's much more dramatic when you look across
district lines within a State.
If you were to ask anyone with two eyes to go into the best
school, the best public school in that State, and everyone can
think about what public school that would be--in Utah, you'd go
to Park City--and you'd say, ``Let's do an inventory of the
services, the school nurses, the professional librarians, the
programs, the international baccalaureate programs, the art
classes, the theater classes, the field trips--if you were to
go in and take an inventory of the service supports and the
programs in the best school in your State, make that your
standard.
Make that the dashboard. Why not? Then say, ``Now, we are
going to compare every single school in our State by how well
it measures up.'' Do you have a school nurse? Do you have a
professional librarian? What's your counselor-to-student ratio?
How are you serving your special ed kids? What's your ELL
program? Do you have clubs after school?
If you were to do that--and the Federal Government, by the
way, is not saying if you don't have perfect equality,
somebody's head rolls. You're saying that role of the Federal
Government is to be transparent, to give good information to
people like the advocates sitting at this table, to say put
that information in our hands so we can go back, and we can
fight for the students that are being shortchanged.
There are ways that you can do this without micromanaging
from the Federal level and making it one more level of
bureaucracy.
Senator Whitehouse. We've gone over my time. I appreciate
it, Senator Cassidy, and I thank the panel very much for a very
helpful conversation.
Senator Cassidy. I also thank y'all, to put a little
southern touch there--y'all. Thank you for being here.
The hearing record will remain open for 10 business days.
Members may submit additional information and questions to our
witnesses for the record within the time if they would like.
Thanks for being here today. The committee will stand
adjourned.
[Additional material follows.]
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Response by Lily Eskelsen Garcia to Questions of Senator Collins,
Senator Sanders, and Senator Whitehouse
senator collins
Question 1. During the reauthorization process, I worked with the
junior Senator from Vermont and others to develop and improve an
innovative assessment pilot program. We sought to give States and
school districts the opportunity to move away from standardized tests
and toward assessments that measure learning competency and proficiency
in innovative ways. The pilot program is one way to address concerns
about over-testing. And it is a way of supporting Maine and other
States that want to focus on what students are learning and how well
they are applying what they learn--not just how well they take a test.
How do you recommend the Department of Education go about
implementing this program? What does the Department need to do to
maintain the flexibility Congress intended to provide to help foster
innovative assessments?
Answer 1. Senator Collins, we are so grateful to you and Senator
Sanders--we deeply appreciate your tireless, bipartisan work on the
innovative assessment pilot program. It is a critical component of the
new law for the many educators, students, and parents who found the
test-and-punish approach of No Child Left Behind counterproductive to
both teaching and learning. I want to be clear that teachers invented
tests--we aren't opposed to assessment! But, in fact, we support
assessment that is authentic and meaningful to both the student and the
teacher. That means that it is linked to real standards and curriculum,
and that results are available for teachers and parents in a timely
way. Further, it means that results can help inform instruction
immediately, rather than arrive deep into the summer, long after most
students have moved on to the next grade. This is what we believe is
authentic assessment, and something we strongly support. We believe
that ESSA goes a long way to supporting movement to this ideal through
a variety of mechanisms, including and especially through the
innovative assessment pilot program.
We strongly recommend having the Department take a ``less is more''
approach when it comes to regulating the innovative assessment pilot
program. We hope that the Department follows congressional intent and
allows each State to develop an assessment plan that works for its
students, communities, and educators without dragging down a new
program with onerous regulations that force ``innovation'' to look a
specific predetermined way.
As you said, those plans should include looking at competency and
proficiency, as well as how students apply what they learn. It should
also be possible to compare and disaggregate assessment results for
different student subgroups. Disaggregation is really important. Above
all, the new assessment systems should be meaningful, which means they
must be relevant to students, parents, and educators.
Question 2. During Secretary King's confirmation hearing, I asked
for his assurance that the Department would engage rural communities in
the ESSA implementation processes. I am not sure that is happening. For
example, I was alarmed that the Department held its initial public
listening sessions in Washington, DC and Los Angeles, CA--both major
urban areas. Rural districts also seem to have been under-represented
on the committee of negotiators selected for the negotiated rulemaking.
It is vital for rural communities and rural educators to have a
seat at the decisionmaking table. What should the Department be doing
to ensure that rural communities are represented during the rulemaking
process? What are you doing to ensure that rural voices are heard and
contribute to State and local planning efforts?
Answer 2. Senator Collins, thank you for that question. I share
your concern about the engagement level the Department has shown in
rural communities. There is definitely room for improvement. I agree
that the selected negotiators during the rulemaking process could have
been more representative of the broad range of types of schools across
the country, particularly rural schools. As we know from NCLB, what
works in Des Moines, IA, may not work in Southwest Harbor, ME, but in
many cases some of those differences are not immediately obvious unless
drawn out through meaningful engaged conversation and real listening on
both sides. Negotiated rulemaking was a missed opportunity in this
regard. We have to make sure these conversations are happening. Yet,
ultimately, the same regulations must apply to all districts. This is
why we argue that final regulations must provide States and communities
the flexibility necessary to meet the unique needs of their
communities.
Many States are doing a better job engaging stakeholders. For
example, in Oregon, the State is holding listening sessions across the
State in geographically diverse communities. We applaud these efforts.
In addition, we at NEA are doing our part to engage our members across
the geographic spectrum. Across the country, in every NEA affiliate, we
are working hand-in-hand with local leaders and stakeholders, striving
to help them understand the critical role they play in the
decisionmaking process under ESSA. In every State, we want
representation of our full membership--urban and rural, teacher and
education support professional--at the table when key decisions are
being made. We are also encouraging our members to file comments with
the Department on the proposed rules and share their individual
perspectives, and we hope the breadth of those comments showing the
diverse makeup of the education community will impress upon the
Department our members' deep interest in the potential impacts of the
proposed regulations.
In addition, we have strongly advocated for the Department of
Education to provide guidance to States about the importance of
providing support--in both leave time and, if necessary, mileage--to
make it possible for stakeholders to participate in the decisionmaking
process. This is especially critical for rural educators who may have
to travel long distances in order to take part in key conversations.
In many States, one criticism we heard early on was that educators
were not given a place at the decisionmaking table. Accordingly, we
have focused on breaking down barriers to educators' participation in
stakeholder conversations. We are working with our partners--both here
in Washington, DC and at the State level--to make sure that all voices
are heard at the decisionmaking table.
senator sanders
Question 1. We must do everything that we can to ensure that every
child--regardless of her or his circumstances--has access to a high-
quality education. We know that a high-quality education is a resource-
intensive endeavor. We also know that disadvantaged children need
additional resources to combat the ravages of poverty and
discrimination. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of
1965 marked the beginning of a strong role for the Federal Government
in combating inequities on both fronts. Clearly, there is much more
work that must be done.
A key component of the Federal Government's role in education is
ensuring that our schools have the additional resources needed to
ensure that every child can reach her or his full potential. Today,
over half of all public school children come from low-income families.
Examining the most recent data available, there is clearly an increased
need, as well as a lack of sufficient Federal resources, to meet this
need (see figure 1, page 3). Between school year 2004-5 and school year
2013-14, we have seen a 32 percent increase in children eligible for
free or reduced lunch--an increase of over 6 million children.
Yet not only has the main source of Federal funding for public
schools serving low-income children--Title I-A of ESEA--failed to keep
pace with the reality that our public schools are serving more low-
income children than a decade ago, it has not even kept up with
inflation. Real title I-A funding is down 6 percent since fiscal year
2005 while the percentage of low-income kids in public schools has
increased by 32 percent over the same time period. If, at a bare
minimum, title-I-A funding had kept pace with inflation since fiscal
year 2005, appropriations for title-I-A would have been $15.2 billion
in fiscal year 2014 instead of $14.4 billion--a difference of nearly a
billion dollars. Furthermore, if title I-A funding had kept pace with
both inflation and the growing number of children coming from low-
income families since fiscal year 2005, title-I-A funding would have
hit $20.2 billion in fiscal year 2014--a gap of over $5.5 billion when
considering reality versus actual funding (see figure 2, page 4).
Ms. Eskelsen Garcia, can you please speak to the importance of
Federal education funding meeting the increased needs of our public
schools? Beyond a dramatic increase to title-I-A funding, what other
funding streams within ESEA and in other Federal programs require an
increase to meet the realities of today's public schools?
Answer 1. Senator Sanders, we at the NEA could not agree with you
more. Like you, we believe that ESSA is first and foremost a civil
rights bill, and that preserving the historic Federal role in ensuring
equal opportunity is critical.
We are deeply concerned, as we know you are, that funding for
formula-grant programs has not kept pace with either the growth in the
student population or the rate of inflation. This is especially
troubling with regard to programs serving the students most in need--
among them, title 1, IDEA, and Perkins grants for career and technical
and education.
To answer your question about what Federal funding streams need to
be increased to address today's realities, I would argue all those that
target the students most in need--the reason ESEA was passed in the
first place. That includes not just K-12 education programs, but high-
quality child care, early childhood education, health care, school
meals, safe and affordable housing, and on and on down the list.
Over time, investments in these programs will more than pay for
themselves. To give just one example: investments in high-quality early
childhood education consistently generate benefit-to-cost ratios of at
least 3-to-1--$3 or more for every single dollar spent, according to
the Economic Policy Institute.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Question 2. I am very concerned that our schools and communities
are dealing with a surge of students exposed to multiple adverse
experiences, and that they are not equipped with the resources,
training, and support to accommodate this crisis.
According to the national Adverse Childhood Experience Study, over
half of those surveyed reported at least one form of childhood
adversity. Shockingly, two in three children in our Nation--46 million
children--are exposed to violence, crime, abuse, or psychological
trauma a year. In Vermont, over 20 percent of children have had two or
more adverse experiences, which include traumatic events like living in
chronic poverty, living with someone with a substance abuse problem,
experiencing community or family violence, and more. Even more alarming
is the fact that our youngest citizens and their parents are at the
forefront of this crisis. Since 2014, the Department for Children and
Families in Vermont has seen a 33 percent increase of children in State
custody with children under the age of six making up more than two-
thirds of this increase. Further, similar to nationwide trends, in my
home State over 40 percent of children come from low-income families--
and young children are the most likely of any age group to be poor.
Ms. Eskelsen Garcia, what can the Department of Education do to
help schools, educators, and communities be prepared to deliver trauma-
informed approaches to education when implementing the Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESSA)? Additionally, what can the Department of Education
do to ensure that educators teaching in environments where a large
percentage of students have had adverse childhood experiences (ACEs)
have the support and the self-care they need to succeed? Furthermore,
what policies should Congress enact to help communities combat these
challenges and attack the root causes--like poverty, exposure to
violence and substance abuse--driving these adverse experiences? How
would increased Federal investments in child care, preschool, maternal
and child home visiting; before-school, after-school, and summer
programming; nutritional supports; and wraparound services for schools
help fight this crisis? Likewise, how would raising the Federal minimum
wage, addressing under-employment and unemployment, implementing paid
family leave, and enacting universal health care coverage help attack
the root causes of these adverse experiences?
As national education leaders, what plans are your organizations
making to work with States to ensure that their schools and
practitioners have trauma-informed approached to education? How will
you make States and school districts aware of opportunities under ESSA
to create trauma-informed environments?
Answer 2. I agree with your assessment of the impact of trauma on
our Nation's public schools. NEA provides a wealth of resources on a
wide range of topics, including many of those you cited, to help
educators provide trauma-informed support for their students. We also
provide hands-on training to help educators create safe, supportive
learning environments. And, increasingly, educators are using
collective bargaining to advocate for more resources and support for
their students.
For example, earlier this year in St. Paul, MN--a joint NEA-AFT
affiliate--teachers used contract negotiations to advocate for greater
investments in safety and resources for their students. And they
succeeded! The school district will be investing $4.5 million over the
next 3 years in restorative practices to help lift up struggling
students. Thirty additional, specialized staff--a combination of social
workers, nurses, counselors, school psychologists, and teachers for
English-language learners--will be hired to help ensure that all the
students in that district receive the support they need and deserve.
NEA is committed to translating our members' commitment to helping
vulnerable students into action. Through a series of one-on-one
conversations over the coming year, we aim to ensure that every single
educator is aware of the opportunities created by ESSA. Then, we plan
to mobilize them to work for change and equity for all students--to
truly fulfill the promise of the original law, the Elementary and
Secondary Act of 1965 that was a centerpiece of our Nation's War on
Poverty. One major way that educators can work for more inclusive
environments for trauma impacted students is by making sure that voices
of educators are included in State and local plans and that entire
communities are engaged and lifted up. Teachers understand what their
students need to succeed. We should listen to their voices and include
their expertise in planning and decisionmaking in order to best serve
all children, but particularly those who are most vulnerable.
Question 3. On the 62d anniversary of the Brown v. Board decision,
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report confirming
what educators, families, students, and community stakeholders have
been telling us anecdotally for some time--our public schools are
becoming more segregated by both race and family income.
The share of public schools that are doubly segregated by race and
income--where 75 percent or more of the kids come from low-income
families and are black or Hispanic--has risen from 9 percent in school
year 2000-2001 to 16 percent in school year 2013-14. Today, one in five
public school students attends a school that is doubly segregated, more
than twice as many as 15 years ago. Hispanic children are often triply
segregated--by race, family income, and native language. Shamefully, 75
percent or more of the children are black and Hispanic at nearly two-
thirds--61 percent--of high-poverty schools.
Segregation and isolation by race and income in our public schools
is an alarming phenomenon on its own. Even more troubling, these doubly
segregated schools are not offering students an education comparable to
that offered by non-segregated schools or schools at the other end of
the spectrum--those in wealthy districts where the student population
is predominately white. The GAO report reveals that doubly segregated
schools have fewer resources, do not offer the full range of core
courses like math and science, offer less advanced coursework, and have
disproportionately more disciplinary actions than other public schools.
I'd like to ask this entire panel what the Federal Government can
do to reverse the troubling trend of segregation by race and income,
and ensure an equal and adequate education for all children? Please
feel free to expound on reforms within education as well as system-wide
changes in areas such as housing, transportation, jobs, and more.
Additionally, through the implementation of the Every Student Succeeds
Act (ESSA), what can the Department of Education do to make States and
school districts aware of new opportunities to increase racial and
socioeconomic diversity?
I also invite Ms. Eskelsen Garcia, Ms. Marshall, Ms. Murguia, and
Ms. Weingarten to address the related issue of increasing diversity in
our schools. ESSA gives States and local school districts greater
autonomy with regard to key educational decisions. How do your
organizations plan to make States and districts aware of opportunities
to increase diversity provided by the new law? Additionally, what tools
or resources do States and communities need to tackle the difficult
task of diversifying our schools to help ensure that they provide an
equal and adequate education for all students?
Answer 3. When discussing equity, we must be clear that it does not
necessarily mean equality. In many under-served communities, the
resource hole is so deep that providing funding equal to that in
wealthier communities is not enough to compensate for the lack of
opportunity. Instead, we must focus on parity--moving sufficient
resources into under-served communities to achieve the same standards
as better-served communities. We believe the promise of the additional
indicator in accountability plans is just for this purpose. Holding
schools accountable, even for just one additional indicator of school
quality beyond a test score, can be a powerful tool to shed light on
the critical gaps in opportunity for children that exist even within a
single district. Further, we are also pleased by the extensive report
card requirements around equity and opportunity that will offer parents
and communities additional information about opportunity gaps in order
to push for change.
ESSA provides many tools that can be used to support the diversity
of the student population. For example, we strongly support the use of
magnet schools to provide challenging educational environments for
children from all kinds of backgrounds. We also must take a clear look
at the way in which charter schools enroll students to ensure that they
do not resegregate communities, as some research has suggested.
We also strongly support the use of community school strategies to
support students. Community schools is a model of school support in
which community organizations, parents, and educators all work together
in creative ways to create supportive environments that support the
whole child. Each community school is a little different. Community
school models are as unique as the schools and communities they serve.
Sustainable community schools try to ensure that every child has an
opportunity to learn and succeed, which is a cornerstone of ESSA. As a
union, we know how to organize, build connections between schools and
the community, survey needs, and forge alliances. We are working across
the country in diverse communities to build capacity around this
incredibly promising model.
We must also do more to increase diversity within the education
professions. While growing numbers of children in public schools are
members of minority groups, the majority of educators--especially
teachers--continue to be white women. We must do more to put role
models in our classrooms who reflect the cultural and ethnic diversity
of America today, as well as to attract more men who can serve as role
models. In addition, to support families and strengthen the social
safety net, we must ensure high-quality child care, access to good
nutrition and health care, and provide employment training.
Finally, NEA has embarked on new work to deepen understanding of
the role segregated housing policies--implicit or explicit--play in
educational inequities and the many ways that growing up in segregated
communities impacts students. This work is hard and requires each of
us--as an organization and as individuals--to look deep within
ourselves and confront ways in which we contribute to persistent
inequality and then to dig even deeper to change our hearts, minds, and
policies toward the path of justice.
Question 4. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) rightly moves
away from the blame and shame approach of the No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) Act. In crafting the new law, Congress listened to educators,
parents, students, stakeholders, and communities when they said, loudly
and clearly, that schools and students are more than test scores. That
is why ESSA requires the use of multiple measures to assess our schools
and students.
Ms. Eskelsen Garcia, as we move toward implementation of the new
law, can you speak to the importance of using multiple measures and not
just test scores in determining how well our schools and students are
doing? Furthermore, as States begin to plan new accountability systems
under ESSA, what recommendations do you have? What indicators of school
quality and student success should States think about including in
their accountability systems?
Answer 4. NEA strongly advocated for accountability systems to
include measures of the resources and opportunities available to
students in different schools and districts. We also support holding
States and school districts accountable for addressing any resource or
opportunity gaps those measures reveal--specifically, for developing
plans to address such gaps.
ESSA requires the new State-developed accountability systems that
take effect in the 2017-18 school year to be based on multiple
measures, not test scores alone. Those systems must include at least
one indicator of school success to student support--and we view that as
the floor not the ceiling.
Furthermore, the new law requires a needs assessment for most plans
and programs--an examination of current resources such as funding,
programs, policies, and performance. NEA's Guide to Educator-Led School
Improvement and GPS Indicators Framework provide detailed information
on the type of accountability systems we envision and support.
senator whitehouse
Question 1. ESSA is a relief to many, especially in Rhode Island.
Everyone who I've talked to is very excited about this bipartisan bill
and the opportunities it presents.
However, I am concerned about the ``supplement, not supplant''
issue. Many of you have said that the Department of Education's
proposed regulations on supplement, not supplant are an overreach. At
the same time, I am aware of many inequities in local and State funding
for education.
Absolutely no one wants to see Federal money provide an excuse for
redirecting other funding to wealthy, well-connected school districts--
for title I to fill funding gaps in such districts.
I've heard from many about the problems with the Department's draft
proposal on supplement, not supplant. My question is not what are the
problems, but what should the Department do instead? That is, what
would you affirmatively propose to ensure that title I funds are
supplemental and that they do not supplant State and local funds?
Answer 1. The affirmative action the Department of Education should
take is reissuing and updating--to reflect changes made by ESSA--the
non-regulatory guidance provided in July 2015, Supporting School Reform
by Leveraging Federal Funds in a Schoolwide Program (https://
www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/eseatitleisw
guidance.pdf).
The Department's ``Dear Colleague'' letter discusses how to use
Federal funds to supplement school reform in ways that are consistent
with ESSA's supplement, not supplant provision. It also says that local
educational agencies (LEAs) should be given flexibility while required
to use Federal funds efficiently and effectively.
Question 2. Under NCLB and the Obama administration's waivers, I
consistently heard from Rhode Island teachers and principals that they
could achieve better results if not for the layers of bureaucracy
stifling innovation at multiple levels.
I am very pleased that ESSA steps away from that one-size-fits-all,
overly prescriptive posture. You have all heard me talk about the
provisions I fought for in ESSA--requiring States to describe how they
will encourage opportunities for more autonomy and flexibility.
I am concerned because I do not want to see the Department of
Education use the regulatory process to grab back the control that ESSA
intended to push down to the State and local level. What could the
Department do on the supplement, not supplant issue that would support
greater innovation at the local level?
Answer 2. My answer to this question is similar to my answer to the
previous question. We believe that the Department of Education should
reissue its non-regulatory guidance from July 2015 to reflect changes
under ESSA. That guidance, not regulation, is consistent with ESSA's
devolution of responsibility to the local level--and it stresses how
local districts can use existing flexibility to implement title I
programs efficiently and effectively.
Response by Randi Weingarten, J.D., to Questions of Senator Burr,
Senator Collins, Senator Sanders, and Senator Whitehouse
senator burr
Question 1. I noted with some interest during your unprepared
remarks you spoke about title I's formula and its inadequacy in
targeting poverty. I couldn't agree more, which is why I and Senator
Michael Bennet of Colorado put forward a plan, the Funding Educational
Opportunity Act, during last year's ESEA reauthorization debate. My
understanding is you vocally opposed my amendment. Is that true?
Answer 1. Senator Burr, you are 100 percent correct in
characterizing my opposition to the inclusion of the Funding
Educational Opportunity Act as part of the ESEA reauthorization
proposal that moved through the Congress last year.
We both share a commitment to targeting title I funding to
districts serving the highest concentrations of poor students. The need
to do this today is as important as it was 50 years ago when President
Lyndon Johnson, a former schoolteacher, advocated for ESEA to level the
playing field so disadvantaged students could have the same
opportunities as their more-advantaged peers. Just like when ESEA was
enacted into law in 1965, the need to invest resources to meet
students' needs remains vitally important as today's poor students
confront an ever-changing world and need extra assistance to help meet
new and higher standards.
However, I truly believe that your legislation would not achieve
its intended goal. Your proposal would have a damaging effect on the
distribution of title I funds to States and local educational agencies.
Last year, it was estimated that your proposal would negatively affect
nearly 10,000 LEAs (or more than 70 percent of all school districts),
more than half of all eligible low-income children, and 1.9 million
teachers working in districts receiving title I funds. This does not
sound like better targeting to me.
This would occur because your legislation seeks to turn on its face
the value that a State's average per-pupil expenditure plays in their
title I allocation. The use of an ``expenditure factor'' in the current
formula recognizes that there are differences in the cost of operating
schools in different parts of the Nation, and allows a higher
allocation in high-cost areas. Your proposal eliminates the expenditure
factor, which would result in a cut in services for students in high-
cost areas. States that invest significant resources in their education
system are rewarded and incentivized to do so through the current
Federal formula. Your legislation would negate that. In addition,
another part of the title I formula is an ``effort factor'' that looks
at how much a State spends relative to per capita income (PCI). States
that spend a high percentage on education relative to PCI are rewarded
by taking effort into account. Your bill would remove both the State
average per-pupil expenditure and the effort factor in the title I
formula. This means that it would hurt both States that spend a lot on
education and States that have high effort relative to PCI.
This amendment would have eliminated much of the formula funding
structure, specifically the PCI provisions and the effort factor that
still rewards poorer States for showing a willingness to invest in
education. It would instead reward States that do not invest as much in
education, in essence taking money from low-income students in one
State and give it to low-income students in another State. This would
amount to nothing more than robbing Peter to pay Paul and shows the
need for additional investment rather than stripping it from some at-
risk children in States that have historically made more of an
investment in their students. I am pleased that Congress recognized the
flaws in this proposed methodology and decided not to include it in the
final version of the Every Student Succeeds Act.
However, I would note that your efforts to better target the
distribution of title II funds was successful because it actually
removed a long-standing hold-harmless provision that was not sensitive
to the shifting populations and concentrations of poor students. Unlike
the changes you sought in title I, this change will actually lead to
the better targeting of Federal funds to disadvantaged students, and I
congratulate you on this accomplishment.
Question 2. You also noted that a targeted title I formula should
fund low-income schools, such as Clara Barton High School, while
lessening funding for wealthier schools, such as Scarsdale High School
because, as you noted, Scarsdale is ``well-funded.'' As you might know,
Scarsdale's school district receives about $95,000 in title I dollars,
despite a $150 million annual operating budget. My amendment attempted
to do something akin to the concept you articulated by redirecting
funds from higher wealth districts to the most impoverished across our
Nation. Ninety-five thousand title I dollars could go a lot further in
high-poverty districts in other parts of the country, such as Charlotte
Mecklenburg Schools.
Given that we seem to share similar goals on this matter and that
increasing title I's overall appropriation alone cannot fully address
these inequities, can you share your plan for making title I's formula
itself--not just more funding--more equitable through targeting
poverty?
Answer 2. Senator, we are in agreement that we should focus on the
schools and districts that have high concentrations of poverty. The
provision in your legislation that implemented a minimum poverty rate
threshold for school districts that could benefit from higher weights
based on their numbers of formula children was laudable. Unfortunately,
there were other provisions in the legislation (as I discussed in my
response to Question 1) that eliminated the targeting benefits that the
current formula provides to school districts today.
senator collins
Question 1. During the reauthorization process, I worked with the
junior Senator from Vermont and others to develop and improve an
innovative assessment pilot program to give States and school districts
the opportunity to move away from standardized tests and toward
assessments that can measure learning competency and proficiency in
innovate ways. This pilot program is one way to address concerns about
over testing and could support those States, like Maine and others,
that want to focus on what students are learning and how well they are
applying that knowledge, not just how well they can take a test.
How do you recommend that the Department implement this program, so
that it maintains the flexibility Congress intended to foster
innovation around assessments?
Answer 1. The AFT views the assessment pilot as a crucial component
of ESSA and worked hard to have it included in the final bill
eventually signed into law. As we've seen with the supplement-not-
supplant and accountability regulations proposed by the Department of
Education, details and intent are crucial. The Department must respect
the underlying goal of ESSA's assessment pilot language, which is to
allow States the opportunity to develop alternatives to the ``drill-
and-kill'' testing regime NCLB has created. In practice, this means the
Department should quickly establish the pilot program to allow States
to get their innovative assessment systems up and running. It should
also operate in the spirit of the law and exercise maximum flexibility
in ensuring that a variety of innovative assessment systems be granted
the waivers. In particular, the assessment system managed by the New
York Performance Standards Consortium, with its decadeslong track
record of effectively serving a diverse population, should be upheld as
a model that can assist States in developing high-quality applications.
Question 2. During Secretary King's confirmation hearing, I asked
for his assurance that the Department would engage rural communities in
its ESSA implementation processes. For example, I was alarmed that the
Department held its initial public listening sessions in DC and Los
Angeles. Rural districts also seem to have been underrepresented on the
committee of negotiators selected for the negotiated rulemaking.
It's vital that rural communities and rural educators have a seat
at the table. What should the Department be doing to ensure rural
communities are represented in its rulemaking?
In your States, what are you doing, as stakeholders, to ensure
rural voices are heard in your State and local planning efforts?
Answer 2. Senator Collins, thank you for this question. The AFT is
committed to making sure that all stakeholders have a voice in how ESSA
is implemented, and that includes all educators working in urban,
suburban or rural communities. One example of how the AFT has engaged
with rural communities is our work in West Virginia.
For more than 4 years, the AFT has guided the efforts of a public-
private partnership to bring much-needed resources and services to
McDowell County, WV, a geographically isolated area in the heart of
Appalachia whose educators are AFT members. Known as Reconnecting
McDowell, the initiative has encouraged a renewed emphasis on improving
the county's schools by focusing on mentoring students and establishing
community schools.
Some of the efforts that have begun to yield positive results in
student achievement include providing thousands of books to replenish
the book inventories at the seven literacy centers that were opened by
Reconnecting McDowell throughout the county; establishing a new program
starting in the fall that will put books on school buses so elementary
school-age kids can read during their long rides to and from school;
clearing the way for construction of Renaissance Village, an apartment
building primarily intended as housing to help recruit and retain
teachers; and creating community schools with healthcare, mental and
oral health services, food programs and other wraparound services that
the community determined were needed for students and their families.
It's clear that rural educators may face unique challenges in
helping their students succeed, and we support efforts to allow their
voice to be heard during ESSA decisionmaking. Scheduling--time and
location--of stakeholder meetings matters in order to make these
meetings accessible to all educators, as does the appropriate use of
technology. We also encourage the Department of Education to make use
of the input of teacher unions, which are composed of the educators who
will directly feel the impact of decisions relating to ESSA
implementation.
senator sanders
Question 1. We must do everything that we can to ensure that every
child--regardless of her or his circumstances--has access to a high-
quality education. We know that a high-quality education is a resource-
intensive endeavor. We also know that disadvantaged children need
additional resources to combat the ravages of poverty and
discrimination. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of
1965 marked the beginning of a strong role for the Federal Government
in combating inequities on both fronts. Clearly, there is much more
work that must be done.
A key component of the Federal Government's role in education is
ensuring that our schools have the additional resources needed to
ensure that every child can reach her or his full potential. Today,
over half of all public school children come from low-income families.
Examining the most recent data available, there is clearly an increased
need, as well as a lack of sufficient Federal resources to meet this
need (figure 1). Between school year 2004-5 and school year 2013-14 we
have seen a 32 percent increase in children eligible for free or
reduced lunch--an increase of over 6 million children.
Yet the main source of Federal funding for public schools serving
low-income children--Title I-A of ESEA--has not only not failed to keep
pace with the reality that our public schools are serving more low-
income children than a decade ago, funding has not even kept up with
inflation. Real title I-A funding is down 6 percent since fiscal year
2005 while the percentage of low-income kids in public schools has
increased by 32 percent over the same time period. If at a bare minimum
title-I-A funding had kept pace with inflation since fiscal year 2005,
appropriations for title-I-A would have been $15.2 billion in fiscal
year 2014 instead of $14.4 billion--a difference of nearly a billion
dollars. Furthermore, if title I-A funding had kept pace with both
inflation and the growing number of children coming from low-income
families since fiscal year 2005, title-I-A funding would have hit $20.2
billion in fiscal year 2014, a gap of over $5.5 billion when
considering reality versus actual funding (figure 2).
Ms. Weingarten, can you please speak to the importance of Federal
education funding meeting the increased needs of our public schools?
Beyond a dramatic increase to title-I-A funding, what other funding
streams within ESEA and in other Federal programs require an increase
to meet the realities of today's public schools?
Answer 1. Senator Sanders, I couldn't agree with you more about the
need to provide adequate support for students, especially vulnerable
populations. Funding for education is an investment in the future of
our individual students and our Nation as a whole. As the country
continues its recovery from lingering effects of the Great Recession,
as our student body grows more diverse, and as we work to implement the
new provisions of the Every Student Succeeds Act, the Federal role in
supporting schools is extremely important.
The NCLB system of test-and-punish offered neither the time nor the
tools for educators to teach and provide the supports all students need
to succeed. Title I funding is foundational to that effort and to
supporting Congress' historic commitment to target Federal resources
where there are concentrations of students in poverty. With half our
kids in public schools coming from poverty, it's vital to increase
title I funding so that resources are available to the students who
need it most.
But as you point out, there are many pieces of the Federal funding
puzzle that affect our students. It is difficult for children to learn
if they are hungry, or don't have adequate healthcare, or don't have
clean, safe water to drink. Federal funds in these areas are necessary
investments for our students to succeed. Congress has never provided
the promised level of funding for the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act to help our special education students get the services
they are entitled to and deserve. For our students, and our country, to
succeed, it is imperative to ensure robust support for providing all
children a strong start through early education such as Head Start and
pre-K; for ESSA Title II to provide teachers the tools, time, and
leadership opportunities they need to help our children succeed; for
ESSA Title III to meet the needs of our country's growing English
language learner population; and for ESSA Title IV, which supports a
well-rounded education and supportive, holistic school intervention
strategies such as community schools.
Question 2. I am very concerned that our schools and communities
are dealing with a surge of students exposed to multiple adverse
experiences and are not equipped with the resources, training, and
support to accommodate this crisis.
According to the national Adverse Childhood Experience Study, over
half of those surveyed reported at least one form of childhood
adversity. Shockingly, two in three children in our Nation--46 million
children--are exposed to violence, crime, abuse, or psychological
trauma a year. In Vermont, over 20 percent of children have had two or
more adverse experiences, which include traumatic events like living in
chronic poverty, living with someone with a substance abuse problem,
experiencing community or family violence, and more. Even more alarming
is the fact that our youngest citizens and their parents are at the
forefront of this crisis. Since 2014, the Department for Children and
Families in Vermont has seen a 33 percent increase of children in State
custody with children under the age of six making up more than two-
thirds of this increase. Further, similar to nationwide trends, over 40
percent of children come from low-income families in my home State,
with young children the most likely of any age group to be poor.
Ms. Weingarten, what can the Department of Education do to help
schools, educators, and communities be prepared to deliver trauma-
informed approaches to education when implementing the Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESSA)? Additionally, what can the Department of Education
do to ensure that educators teaching in environments where a large
percentage of students have had adverse childhood experiences (ACEs)
have the support and the self-care they need to succeed? Furthermore,
what policies should Congress enact to help communities combat these
challenges and attack the root causes--like poverty, exposure to
violence and substance abuse--driving these adverse experiences? How
would increased Federal investments in child care, preschool, maternal
and child home visiting, before-school, afterschool, and summer
programming, nutritional supports, wrap-around services for schools and
more help to fight this crisis? Likewise, how would raising the Federal
minimum wage, addressing under-employment and unemployment,
implementing paid family leave, and enacting universal health care
coverage help attack the root causes of these adverse experiences?
As national education leaders, what plans are your organizations
making to work with States to ensure that their schools and
practitioners have trauma-informed approached to education? How will
you make States and school districts aware of opportunities under ESSA
to create trauma-informed environments?
Answer 2. Research shows that two-thirds of what affects student
achievement occurs outside of the classroom. When this fact is placed
in the context of half of all public school students living in poverty,
it is not surprising that schools have become much more than education
institutions. Teachers, paraprofessionals, nurses, counselors and other
members of the school team try to meet student needs that are caused by
poverty. When poverty is combined with additional traumatic
experiences, educators and schools are pushed over the brink and are
often challenged to do anything beyond responding to immediate crises.
While these challenges have long been known, the Federal Government
has sought to maintain an educational accountability system that
ignores the impact of ``adverse experiences.'' It is crucial to address
poverty and trauma if the country wishes to have strong educational and
economic outputs. This means increasing revenue so the Nation can
provide services and supports to all who need them, including: free/
low-cost child care and preschool; maternal and child home visitation
programs; high-quality before- and after-school programs; effective
apprenticeship programs; access to affordable higher education; a
livable minimum wage; investment in the Nation's infrastructure,
schools and struggling communities to provide well-paying jobs; and
ensuring that pharmaceutical and other healthcare costs do not bankrupt
families.
More specifically, the AFT has found that community schools are an
effective strategy that can be used to address the ``multiple adverse
experiences'' described in your question. The Department can work to
ensure that it supports the community school model under Title IV of
ESSA, highlight the ability of schools to use title I funds to provide
wraparound services where they are absent, circulate the Department of
Health and Human Services' 2014 letter stating that schools may seek
reimbursement from Medicaid for the provision of health services, and
develop regulations and guidance that encourage States to incorporate
measures of student well-being into their accountability systems.
Regarding the last point, the AFT is offering a framework of indicators
beyond test scores for school quality and student success that
stakeholders can consider in designing accountability systems. This
framework includes academic outcomes such as measures of students
participating in and completing advanced coursework or career and
technical education courses, measures that gauge students' opportunity
to learn such as access to safe and adequate facilities, and measures
of students' engagement and support such as chronic absenteeism. This
framework is available at: http://dbweb01.aft.org/sites/default/files/
essa_new-accountability032116.pdf.
The AFT is working to make sure our affiliates are aware of the
positive potential ESSA represents and is encouraging our locals to be
involved in the implementation process. The AFT has also developed
guides to help educators support students threatened by Immigration and
Customs Enforcement raids, assisted educators in addressing gun
violence across the country after the mass murder of elementary
students and educators in Newtown, CT, and convened a task force to
address issues of racial bias. The task force produced a report titled
``Reclaiming the Promise of Racial Equity: In Education, Economics and
Our Criminal Justice System,'' which provides a framework for the
development of policy in national and State legislation, at the school
board level and inside the AFT itself. The report can be found at:
http://www.aft.org/news/aft-issues-groundbreaking-report-racial-
equity#sthash.qlsHHuOd.dpuf.
Question 3. Yesterday, on the 62d anniversary of the Brown v. Board
decision, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report
confirming what educators, families, students, and community
stakeholders have been telling us anecdotally for some time--our public
schools are becoming more segregated by both race and family income.
The number of schools that are doubly segregated by both race and
income--where 75 percent or more of the kids at these schools come from
low-income families and are black or Hispanic--has increased from 9
percent of all public schools in school year 2000-2001 to 16 percent of
all public schools in school year 2013-14. Additionally, today, nearly
one in five public students attend these doubly segregated public
schools--more than double the amount of kids who attended these schools
almost 15 years ago. Furthermore, Hispanic children are often triply
segregated by race, family income, and native language. Shamefully,
nearly two-thirds--61 percent--of all high-poverty schools are schools
where over 75 percent or more of the children are black and Hispanic.
Segregation and isolation by race and income in our public school
is an alarming phenomenon on its own. Even more troubling is that the
fact that these doubly segregated schools are not offering students a
comparable education to non-segregated schools and schools at the other
end of the spectrum that are wealthy and predominately white. The GAO
report uncovers that these doubly segregated schools have fewer
resources, do not offer the full range of core courses like math and
science, offer less advanced coursework, and have disproportionately
more disciplinary actions than other public schools.
I'd like to ask this entire panel--what can the Federal Government
do to reverse this troubling trend of segregation by race and income,
and ensure an equal and adequate education for all children? Please
feel free to expound on reforms within education and greater system
wide changes including housing, transportation, jobs, and more.
Additionally, through the implementation of the Every Student Succeeds
Act (ESSA) what can the Department of Education do to make States and
school districts aware of opportunities within this new law to increase
racial and socioeconomic diversity in our schools?
Relatedly, Ms. Eskelsen Garcia, Ms. Marshall, Ms. Murguia, and Ms.
Weingarten, ESSA provides States and local school districts more
autonomy to make key educational decisions. What are your
organizations' plans to make States and local school districts aware of
opportunities to increase diversity under this new law? Additionally,
what other tools or resources do States and communities need to tackle
the difficult task of diversify our schools are providing equal and
adequate education for all students?
Answer 3. The AFT will continue to be committed to informing its
members, parents, students and the public of the scope and impact of
segregation, desegregation and resegregation across the Nation and take
the appropriate actions to publicize, promote and motivate the
unfulfilled goal of the integration of our public schools.
We recently commemorated the 62d anniversary of the Brown v. Board
decision, and data show that America's schools are resegregating at an
alarming rate. It is clear that, as a Nation, we have failed to carry
out our moral and legal duty to ensure that educational opportunity is
``available to all on equal terms.''
The fight for all children to have access to an excellent education
is the Brown decision's legacy. It requires a focus on equitable access
and resources, evidence of effectiveness, and scaling and sustaining
successful practices. One way that some school districts and States
have addressed this in recent years--including my hometown district,
New York City, led by Mayor de Blasio--is by providing high-quality
early childhood education.
Decades of research show that early childhood education can produce
significant educational and economic benefits. Such programs help level
the playing field for disadvantaged children, a particular concern in
districts with concentrated poverty and deep segregation.
Another way to overcome segregation and poverty is through
community schools. In the Cincinnati Public Schools district, every
public school is a community learning center offering supports ranging
from healthcare, to legal and housing assistance, to mentoring.
Cincinnati's successful community schools approach demonstrates that
while poverty matters in education, its effects can be mitigated. Ten
years ago, one of every two students in this high-poverty district did
not complete high school. Today, the graduation rate has surged to 80
percent. Achievement gaps between African American and white students
are narrowing. Student mobility, which can be so disruptive to a
child's education, is down. And discipline referrals have dropped
sharply--keeping students in school, keeping them learning.
Through ESSA, this Congress and the Department of Education can
significantly invest in early childhood education and community
schools, programs that fight poverty and enable economic and racial
integration.
Additionally, through greater investments in title I, the AFT
believes that American students and schools will benefit. ESSA
continues important equity safeguards so States cannot deny
disadvantaged children the additional funding that the Federal
Government has provided to level the playing field. Starting with ESSA
and continuing with some of the efforts outlined above, the Federal
Government can play a vital role in ensuring that all American students
enjoy the benefits of diversity and experience the joy that comes from
learning in an invigorating, inspiring and inclusive integrated
environment.
Question 4. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) rightly moves
away from the blame and shame approach of the No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) Act. In crafting this new law, Congress listened to educators,
parents, students, stakeholders, and communities, who spoke out loudly
and clearly that schools and students are more than a test score. That
is why ESSA uses multiple measures to examine the success of our
schools and students.
Ms. Weingarten, as we move toward implementation of this new law,
can you speak to the importance of using multiple measures and not just
test scores in determining how well our schools and students are doing?
Furthermore, as States begin to plan new accountability systems under
ESSA, what recommendations do you have? What indicators of school
quality and student success should States think about including in
their accountability system?
Answer 4. Under NCLB, our public schools were subject to a test-
and-punish accountability system that not only impeded learning but
also led to unintended consequences. This system discouraged
educational innovation, demoralized teachers, narrowed instruction and,
most important, failed to address the needs of children, particularly
the most disadvantaged. The passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act
provides an opportunity for us to replace this faulty system with a new
paradigm for accountability, one that supports deeper levels of
learning for all students and one that incorporates measures beyond
test scores.
The AFT encourages States to meaningfully engage with their
stakeholders--including educators, parents and community members--as to
what they value in their children's school. The AFT is offering a
framework of indicators beyond test scores for school quality and
student success that stakeholders can consider in designing
accountability systems. This framework includes academic outcomes, such
as measures of students participating in and completing advanced
coursework or career and technical education courses; measures that
gauge students' opportunity to learn, such as access to safe and
adequate facilities; and measures of students' engagement and support,
such as chronic absenteeism. This framework is available at: http://
dbweb01.aft.org/sites/default/files/essa_new-accountability032116.pdf.
senator whitehouse
Question 1. ESSA is a relief to many, especially in Rhode Island.
Everyone who I've talked to is very excited about this bipartisan bill
and the opportunities it presents.
I am concerned about the supplement, not supplant issue. Many of
you have said that ED's proposed regulations on ``supplement, not
supplant'' are an overreach. But I am also aware of many inequities
that exist in local and State funding for education.
Absolutely no one wants to see Federal money come in and provide an
excuse to send other funding into wealthier, well-connected school
districts and have title I fill the gap.
I've heard from many about the problems with ED's draft proposal.
My question is not what are the problems, but what should ED do
instead? That is, what would you affirmatively propose to ensure that
title I funds are supplemental and not supplanting State and local
funds?
Answer 1. Thank you for this question. What is absolutely essential
is that we do not put in place rules that exacerbate inequitable school
funding or that disrupt schools that are stable places in their
communities for students and their families. Unfortunately, having
witnessed many school funding scenarios during my time in New York
City, and having watched closely and participated in the recent debate
over supplement-not-supplant regulations, I see few good ways of
mandating supplement-not-supplant methodologies at the Federal level
without leveling down funding for some schools, thus destabilizing such
schools.
I am very willing to consider supplement-not-supplant proposals
that give school systems time to level up funding so that they can
ensure that resources--including but not limited to wraparound
services, staffing, facilities and supplies--are provided to schools
that are currently receiving less than their fair share. But this must
be done without taking away such funding from schools that are just
getting enough to maintain the services, staffing and supports they are
providing students. Such a proposal must also protect students from
having the staff at their schools move from year to year so that
districts can balance funding allotments between schools, because a
stable workforce with familiar faces from year to year is exactly what
many of our most vulnerable students desperately need.
Question 2. Under NCLB and the Obama administration's waivers, I
consistently heard from Rhode Island teachers and principals that they
could achieve better results if not for the layers of bureaucracy
stifling innovation at multiple levels.
I am very pleased that ESSA is a step away from that one-size-fits-
all, overly prescriptive posture. You have all heard me talk about the
provisions I fought for in ESSA--requiring States to describe how they
will encourage opportunities for increased autonomy and flexibility.
I am concerned because I do not want to see ED use the regulatory
process to grab back the control that ESSA intended to push down to the
State and local level. What could ED do on the supplement, not supplant
issue that would support greater innovation at the local level?
Answer 2. ESSA's predecessor, the No Child Left Behind Act, was in
place for more than 14 years. One lesson this Congress and this
administration can take from that is that it should not put in place
overly prescriptive rules that stifle innovation now and in the future.
We don't know what schooling in 2026 or 2030 is going to look like, so
this administration has a responsibility to not require box checking
and dollar-for-dollar comparisons that can't take into account how
education will evolve over the next decade-plus.
Affirmatively, one thing that the Education Department can do is
encourage States and districts to fund initiatives like early childhood
education, community schools and wraparound services at schools serving
students in poverty. Such programs are rarely inexpensive, but research
shows that they are exactly the investments needed to combat the
effects of poverty, increase student learning and address the needs of
the whole child.
Response by Tony Evers, Ph.D. to Questions of Senator Enzi, Senator
Collins, Senator Sanders, and Senator Whitehouse
senator enzi
Question 1. Dr. Evers, as a State Education Chief, what has been
the response of your rural districts as to the ``supplement, not
supplant'' proposal you saw during the negotiated rulemaking session
and how it will affect them, especially with the knowledge that it
could cause the forced transfer of teachers?
Answer 1. All school districts are wondering what direction the
supplement, not supplant (SnS) rules will take when they are put out
for public comment. There is great concern from both rural and urban
school districts with the proposal the Department of Education (ED)
presented in the negotiated rulemaking session earlier this year.
Concerns range from the amount of administrative reporting that would
be created, and add onto already full plates, to the impact this could
have on teacher assignments, teacher pay, and programs offered to
students. The initial proposal seems predicated on a premise that
school districts will be able to spend more to ensure compliance, when
in reality our school districts are stretched thin in terms of
resources and reallocation of those resources is the most likely
response to come into compliance.
Question 2. Dr. Evers, I'm an accountant by trade. I know that
reporting school level expenditures by specific funding source is not
supported by the fiscal data systems used by schools in Wyoming and
would cause significant changes in order to comply. Can you talk about
what feedback you received, after viewing the ``supplement, not
supplant'' proposal during the negotiated rulemaking panel, from your
data team as to the size of the changes that would be necessary if such
a change were to be put into place?
Answer 2. For many school districts across the country, ED's
supplement, not supplant proposal would require fundamental change from
current practice. For example, under ED's negotiated rulemaking
proposal, school districts would be required to account for district-
wide costs and services on a per-school basis. In general, these type
of services are provided on a district-wide basis and aren't presently
accounted for on a school-by-school basis. For example, if a district
provides district-wide professional development opportunities for its
teachers, systems presently treat this as a district-wide expenditure,
and not a school-by-school expenditure. In addition, districts often
fund schools on a position-by-position (rather than per-pupil) basis,
and the proposal would force them to create accounting systems that
measure costs on a per-pupil basis.
In terms of the size of the change needed to implement this
different type of accounting system, it would largely depend on what
services a given district might provide district-wide and the structure
of their existing accounting systems along with State-level reporting
and data collection requirements. In Wisconsin, this would involve
significant new data collections at the State level that we would have
to build into our existing school finance system. At the State level
Wisconsin does not collect school building-level finance data. We do
not know all that would be required of us at the moment to do so, but
given the timelines involved, it will be difficult to impossible for us
to build these systems and have them up and running for the next school
year so they can be reported out in 2017-18.
senator collins
Question. During Secretary King's confirmation hearing, I asked for
his assurance that the Department would engage rural communities in its
ESSA implementation processes. For example, I was alarmed that the
Department held its initial public listening sessions in DC and Los
Angeles. Rural districts also seem to have been underrepresented on the
committee of negotiators selected for the negotiated rulemaking.
It's vital that rural communities and rural educators have a seat
at the table. What should the Department be doing to ensure rural
communities are represented in its rulemaking?
In your States, what are you doing, as stakeholders, to ensure
rural voices are heard in your State and local planning efforts?
Answer. As States, we work hard to represent all of our
constituencies. As State Superintendent, CCSSO President, and a member
of the negotiated rulemaking committee, I worked to represent the
interests of my State, which includes many rural schools, as well as
those of other chief State school officers who share both rural and
urban concerns.
In Wisconsin a quarter of our 424 school districts have fewer than
500 students and we have set up a significant process to solicit
feedback on ESSA from across our State, including rural schools and
communities.
As we begin our planning efforts around ESSA, we are ensuring that
at least one of our three school improvement and accountability
listening sessions is located in northern Wisconsin to reach more rural
communities. We sent special invitations to rural groups and school
districts to participate in listening sessions. Wisconsin is also
hosting a virtual listening session and an online feedback form to
ensure that distance is not a barrier to providing input. Additionally,
we will be soliciting feedback from the State Superintendent's Rural
Advisory Council and the Wisconsin Rural Schools Alliance.
senator sanders
Question 1. We must do everything that we can to ensure that every
child--regardless of her or his circumstances--has access to a high-
quality education. We know that a high-quality education is a resource-
intensive endeavor. We also know that disadvantaged children need
additional resources to combat the ravages of poverty and
discrimination. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of
1965 marked the beginning of a strong role for the Federal Government
in combating inequities on both fronts. Clearly, there is much more
work that must be done.
A key component of the Federal Government's role in education is
ensuring that our schools have the additional resources needed to
ensure that every child can reach her or his full potential. Today,
over half of all public school children come from low-income families.
Examining the most recent data available, there is clearly an increased
need, as well as a lack of sufficient Federal resources to meet this
need (figure 1). Between school year 2004-5 and school year 2013-14 we
have seen a 32 percent increase in children eligible for free or
reduced lunch--an increase of over 6 million children.
Yet the main source of Federal funding for public schools serving
low-income children--Title I-A of ESEA--has not only not failed to keep
pace with the reality that our public schools are serving more low-
income children than a decade ago, funding has not even kept up with
inflation. Real title I-A funding is down 6 percent since fiscal year
2005 while the percentage of low-income kids in public schools has
increased by 32 percent over the same time period. If at a bare minimum
title-I-A funding had kept pace with inflation since fiscal year 2005,
appropriations for title-I-A would have been $15.2 billion in fiscal
year 2014 instead of $14.4 billion--a difference of nearly a billion
dollars. Furthermore, if title I-A funding had kept pace with both
inflation and the growing number of children coming from low-income
families since fiscal year 2005, title-I-A funding would have hit $20.2
billion in fiscal year 2014, a gap of over $5.5 billion when
considering reality versus actual funding (figure 2).
Dr. Evers, can you please speak to the importance of Federal
education funding meeting the increased needs of our public schools?
Beyond a dramatic increase to title-I-A funding, what other funding
streams within ESEA and in other Federal programs require an increase
to meet the realities of today's public schools?
Answer 1. Funding matters at both the State and Federal level. In
Wisconsin, this is enshrined in our State constitution which states in
Article X, Section 3 that ``The legislature shall provide by law for
the establishment of district schools, which shall be as nearly uniform
as practicable . . .'' It is our responsibility to ensure that all
children graduate college and career ready. Yet, all children do not
come to us with equal needs or equally prepared. In this regard,
Federal support for public education is critical to State and local
efforts to provide all children--regardless of socioeconomic
background--with a high quality education.
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which reauthorizes the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), authorizes essential
funding that will allow States to support school improvement, help
recruit and train high-quality teachers, principals, and other school
leaders, address the needs of students who face specific barriers to
learning, and pursue innovations to improve the delivery of
programming; together, these efforts should expand educational
opportunity for all students, including those from low-income
backgrounds.
Yet ESSA is part, but not the whole picture when it comes to
important Federal supports. For instance, I would point out that the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is critically
underfunded; we need fewer children coming to school hungry so
reimbursements for school breakfast, lunch, and community nutrition
programs are important; we need more dollars for mental health services
in schools; and we need universal quality pre-kindergarten programs.
While adequate funding is, obviously, tremendously important, it is
equally important that Federal administrators maintain the flexibility
embodied in ESSA--empowering States and local districts to use
available funding effectively and efficiently to address the needs of
their unique student populations. When it comes to deciding how to
leverage Federal funding, State and local officials and educators have
a critical role to play in identifying or developing strategies that
will be effective for their schools and students.
Finally, I should note that there is a wide variance among
Wisconsin school districts in the share of their budgets that are from
Federal sources. In the 2014-15 school year, while Federal revenues
represented 7.5 percent of all revenues received by school districts on
a statewide basis in Wisconsin, they were 41 percent of all revenues
(Federal, State, property taxes, and other local receipts) received by
the Lac du Flambeau School District and only 1.3 percent of the total
revenues received by the Central Westosha School District. In short,
Federal funding issues and requirements related to their receipt affect
different school districts differently.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Question 2. I am very concerned that our schools and communities
are dealing with a surge of students exposed to multiple adverse
experiences and are not equipped with the resources, training, and
support to accommodate this crisis.
According to the national Adverse Childhood Experience Study, over
half of those surveyed reported at least one form of childhood
adversity. Shockingly, two in three children in our Nation--46 million
children--are exposed to violence, crime, abuse, or psychological
trauma a year. In Vermont, over 20 percent of children have had two or
more adverse experiences, which include traumatic events like living in
chronic poverty, living with someone with a substance abuse problem,
experiencing community or family violence, and more. Even more alarming
is the fact that our youngest citizens and their parents are at the
forefront of this crisis. Since 2014, the Department for Children and
Families in Vermont has seen a 33 percent increase of children in State
custody with children under the age of six making up more than two-
thirds of this increase. Further, similar to nationwide trends, over 40
percent of children come from low-income families in my home State,
with young children the most likely of any age group to be poor.
Dr. Evers, what can the Department of Education do to help schools,
educators, and communities be prepared to deliver trauma-informed
approaches to education when implementing the Every Student Succeeds
Act (ESSA)? Additionally, what can the Department of Education do to
ensure that educators teaching in environments where a large percentage
of students have had adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) have the
support and the self-care they need to succeed? Furthermore, what
policies should Congress enact to help communities combat these
challenges and attack the root causes--like poverty, exposure to
violence and substance abuse--driving these adverse experiences? How
would increased Federal investments in child care, preschool, maternal
and child home visiting, before-school, afterschool, and summer
programming, nutritional supports, wrap-around services for schools and
more help to fight this crisis? Likewise, how would raising the Federal
minimum wage, addressing under-employment and unemployment,
implementing paid family leave, and enacting universal health care
coverage help attack the root causes of these adverse experiences?
As national education leaders, what plans are your organizations
making to work with States to ensure that their schools and
practitioners have trauma-informed approaches to education? How will
you make States and school districts aware of opportunities under ESSA
to create trauma-informed environments?
Answer 2. Far too many children face challenges--including poverty,
hunger, exposure to violence, lack of reliable healthcare, and other
sources of trauma--that make it extremely difficult for them to learn
when they come to school. In this context, our education system cannot
exist in isolation. States understand the importance of being
intentional and strategic to ensure that our education system works in
close coordination with other systems that help address the day-to-day
challenges faced by children and families.
While States would welcome increased Federal funding for programs
that address the needs of students living in poverty and other students
exposed to adverse experiences, ensuring flexibility for States,
districts, and schools in the use of Federal education funding is also
important to supporting the development of a more integrated system
that puts students in the best position to learn when they come to
school. It is essential the Federal rules allow States and districts
the discretion to allocate funding in ways that effectively address the
unique challenges faced by their students, including, but not limited
to, providing professional development on trauma-informed responses to
educators.
ESSA emphasizes the need for comprehensive supports for students,
and States are prepared to tackle this challenge. Now, it is important
that States and districts are empowered to utilize Federal funding to
create responsive, effective systems. It is also important that we work
with our national organizations and the Department of Education to
ensure that we are sharing best practices as to what is working in our
States and why.
In Wisconsin, we have undertaken a number of steps to help school
districts and provide an integrated approach to care.
Wisconsin provides access to training and supports around
Trauma Sensitive Schools/Practices (TSS)--Wisconsin's TSS resources and
online learning modules are examples, as are our professional
development resources for training and technical assistance.
Wisconsin has developed a school mental health framework
that provides guidance to build and strengthen a comprehensive school
mental health system.
We have made investments in resources, training, and
implementation supports for Social Emotional Learning (SEL)
competencies, especially at the early childhood and preschool levels.
SEL programs implemented by school staff members (e.g., teachers,
student support personnel) improve children's behavior, attitudes
toward school, and levels of academic achievement (CASEL, 2008).
We have developed statewide Response to Intervention and
Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports centers to help increase
academic performance, improve safety and establish a positive school
culture.
Question 3. Yesterday, on the 62d anniversary of the Brown v. Board
decision, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report
confirming what educators, families, students, and community
stakeholders have been telling us anecdotally for some time--our public
schools are becoming more segregated by both race and family income.
The number of schools that are doubly segregated by both race and
income--where 75 percent or more of the kids at these schools come from
low-income families and are black or Hispanic--has increased from 9
percent of all public schools in school year 2000-2001 to 16 percent of
all public schools in school year 2013-14. Additionally, today, nearly
one in five public students attend these doubly segregated public
schools--more than double the amount of kids who attended these schools
almost 15 years ago. Furthermore, Hispanic children are often triply
segregated by race, family income, and native language. Shamefully,
nearly two-thirds--61 percent--of all high-poverty schools are schools
where over 75 percent or more of the children are black and Hispanic.
Segregation and isolation by race and income in our public school
is an alarming phenomenon on its own. Even more troubling is the fact
that these doubly segregated schools are not offering students a
comparable education to non-segregated schools and schools at the other
end of the spectrum that are wealthy and predominately white. The GAO
report uncovers that these doubly segregated schools have fewer
resources, do not offer the full range of core courses like math and
science, offer less advanced coursework, and have disproportionately
more disciplinary actions than other public schools.
I'd like to ask this entire panel--what can the Federal Government
do to reverse this troubling trend of segregation by race and income,
and ensure an equal and adequate education for all children? Please
feel free to expound on reforms within education and greater system
wide changes including housing, transportation, jobs, and more.
Additionally, through the implementation of the Every Student Succeeds
Act (ESSA) what can the Department of Education do to make States and
school districts aware of opportunities within this new law to increase
racial and socioeconomic diversity in our schools?
Answer 3. ESEA is, fundamentally, a civil rights law; one of its
core tenets is ensuring that every child--regardless of race or
income--has the opportunity to get a high-quality education.
It was introduced as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson's War on
Poverty and on the occasion of its signing, President Johnson stated,
``By passing this bill, we bridge the gap between helplessness and hope
for more than five million educationally deprived children.''
President Johnson's words cannot be just an aspirational statement.
Ensuring a quality education where every student graduates college- and
career-ready is critical to fulfilling the original promise of ESEA. I
am not proud of the fact that Wisconsin has one of the largest
achievement gaps between African American students and their peers. I
have taken active steps to address our gaps by providing intensive
supports to school districts, identifying key issues through our State
educator equity plan regarding the qualifications of educators teaching
our students, and convened a task force to provide best practices that
can be used in the classroom to address achievement gaps. I have also
made closing gaps and equity my priority as President of the Chief
Council of State School Officers.
I know I am not alone in working to address this issue. All States
have significant work to do. It is work that transcends education and
calls for an examination of other policies surrounding housing,
transportation, and economic development that result in concentrations
of poverty that are reflected in our local schools.
ESSA helps us address this concentration in the law's pointed
references to the importance of ensuring that low-income and minority
students are afforded the same educational opportunities as their peers
and requirements for stakeholder consultation. A good example of how
concrete policy solutions must be offered at the State and local level
can be found in ESSA's requirement for States to describe, as part of
their title I State plans, ``how low-income and minority children . . .
are not served at disproportionate rates by ineffective, out-of-field,
or inexperienced teachers.'' Local school districts are also required
to address the findings. States take the responsibility for ensuring
equitable educational opportunity seriously and will work with school
districts and other stakeholders to that end.
At the same time, the Department of Education has an important role
to play in ensuring that States and districts remain within the strong
Federal guardrails included in ESSA, while still maintaining State and
local flexibility to innovate and share effective and evidence-based
practices. As I noted in earlier testimony before this committee, in
States like Wisconsin we welcome Federal oversight of the progress we
are making, but it is important that States and local districts have
the flexibility to identify measures and design interventions that
reflect the realities facing their unique student populations, because
we have seen that No Child Left Behind's one-size-fits-all approach is
ineffective.
Question 4. Dr. Evers, in the United States, over 1.7 million
students attend about 18,000 schools with student bodies that are less
than 200 hundred students. In Vermont nearly 14,500 students attend 130
schools that have less than 200 students.
The Every Child Achieves Act (ESSA) maintains important
accountability and transparency requirements to help us ensure that
each child can reach their full potential. States must choose their own
``n-size'' or the minimum number of students necessary to comprise the
student subgroup categories of low-income students, students from major
racial and ethnic groups, children with disabilities, and English
Language Learners. As you know, accountability under this law is
conducted at the school level.
States with many small schools struggle with finding an n-size that
accurately captures the performance of all students and student
subgroups. In Vermont for example, setting an n-size of 11, and using
school-based accountability would still suppress the outcomes of 25
percent of all elementary schools and nearly 70 percent of all low-
income students. Setting a higher n-size of 40, and using school-based
accountability, would suppress student outcome data of almost 80
percent of all elementary schools.
As the chief State school officer of a State with many rural areas
and small schools, how do you negotiate the tension of setting an
appropriate n-size with the reality of small schools and the fact that
some children may not be identified using school-level accountability?
What recommendations do you have for the U.S. Department of Education
and other States where school-level accountability creates a challenge
to setting an n-size that will appropriately capture the educational
outcomes of students? Is school-district wide accountability an
appropriate substitute for the resource intensive small school
verification process or an additional layer of accountability for
States to use when the size of schools obfuscates the reporting on
outcomes of student achievement?
Answer 4. How to ensure reliable and valid data is not simple in a
State like Wisconsin given the variance in the size of our school
districts. In Wisconsin, we have 424 school districts, 24 independent
charter schools who are their own local educational agency, and an
additional 218 charter schools authorized by school districts. We have
over 867,000 students. Our largest school district serves over 75,000
students and our smallest under 100. Moreover a quarter of our school
districts have less than 500 students.
As a result, we feel the need to strike a balance between valid and
reliable accountability measures, which nod toward higher cell sizes,
and including as many students in the accountability system as
possible. I think we have made significant progress in crafting an
accountability system that is reliable and valid. To that end, I've
provided below a description of how Wisconsin has approached cell
sizes.
When we applied for a waiver in ESEA, we changed our cell
size from 40 to 20. My staff ran analyses to identify a new smaller
cell size and the impact of the change.
At the time, 35.3 percent more students with
disabilities were included with a cell size of 20 instead of
40.
18.2 percent more English learners were included.
412 or 19.5 percent more schools were included.
The cell size change admittedly decreased initial
reliability of some measures, so we've looked to address those
challenges by using multiple years of data and, in some cases, pooling
small groups of students together in order to include them in the
system.
Almost every measure of our accountability report card
uses at least 2 years of data in the calculation, in order to buffer
the group size and stabilize the measure. Trend calculations are
weighted so that the current year has the highest weight in order to
ensure that using more years doesn't obscure progress or challenges.
We use a supplemental supergroup in cases in which
economically disadvantaged students, English learners, and students
with disabilities groups do not meet cell size on their own. This
includes more students in the accountability system. We consider this a
supplemental group because it does not replace any existing subgroups;
we only use this group if the individual subgroups do not alone meet
minimum cell size.
At the time of initial implementation (for 2011-12
reports), we were able to provide gap closure scores for over
100 more schools than without supergroups.
Even with all this, we still have students not included in
school-level accountability. One way we've made some progress on this
is by creating district accountability report cards. In some cases, a
student group at a school level may not be large enough to meet a
school-level cell size of 20, but when students in that group are
pooled together across a district, there is a greater chance they will
be included in that level of reporting.
senator whitehouse
Question 1. ESSA is a relief to many, especially in Rhode Island.
Everyone who I've talked to is very excited about this bipartisan bill
and the opportunities it presents.
I am concerned about the supplement, not supplant issue. Many of
you have said that ED's proposed regulations on ``supplement, not
supplant'' are an overreach. But I am also aware of many inequities
that exist in local and State funding for education.
Absolutely no one wants to see Federal money come in and provide an
excuse to send other funding into wealthier, well-connected school
districts and have title I fill the gap.
I've heard from many about the problems with ED's draft proposal.
My question is not what are the problems, but what should ED do
instead? That is, what would you affirmatively propose to ensure that
title I funds are supplemental and not supplanting State and local
funds?
Answer 1. I'm not sure I have a silver bullet solution, but there
are options that may be considered. For instance, the simplest thing
would be to require an assurance that Federal funds will supplement
State and local funds. That is very similar to what we're doing now,
and we could keep it as an assurance for which we are responsible and
on which our Federal funds are contingent.
If there is a need for a methodology to prove what districts are
doing, one could consider linking supplement, not supplant with
comparability provisions. Could current comparability provisions be
used to satisfy ESSA supplement, not supplant requirements? A benefit
to this approach is that schools may use full-time equivalency instead
of actual salaries. The current comparability rules work from our
perspective and we think could be an option to meet the requirements in
ESSA by allowing it in the regulations.
Yet another option could involve keeping existing supplement, not
supplant requirements and, additionally, requiring States to assure
they will establish a method to compare spending on low-income students
at the building and district level to statewide averages. Any
discrepancy outside of a certain range would have to be explained to
ED.
Question 2. Under NCLB and the Obama administration's waivers, I
consistently heard from Rhode Island teachers and principals that they
could achieve better results if not for the layers of bureaucracy
stifling innovation at multiple levels.
I am very pleased that ESSA is a step away from that one-size-fits-
all, overly prescriptive posture. You have all heard me talk about the
provisions I fought for in ESSA--requiring States to describe how they
will encourage opportunities for increased autonomy and flexibility.
I am concerned because I do not want to see ED use the regulatory
process to grab back the control that ESSA intended to push down to the
State and local level. What could ED do on the supplement, not supplant
issue that would support greater innovation at the local level?
Answer 2. I'm going to refer to my answer in your first question
regarding supplement, not supplant. I don't know if supplement, not
supplant can engender innovation, but, related to your first question,
if we want to eliminate bureaucracy the Department of Education could
make changes to simplify the supplement, not supplant proposed rules to
recognize how complex compliance would be under the system they put
forward in negotiated rulemaking.
Separately, under the many flexibilities granted under ESSA, one
that I believe will result in significant innovation is the new
provision to allow State education agencies to waive the poverty
requirement for a school to become schoolwide program. This, I believe,
will result in significant and more innovative programming in schools
and districts.
Response by Thomas Ahart, Ed.D., to Questions of Chairman Alexander,
Senator Collins, Senator Sanders, and Senator Whitehouse
Chairman Alexander
Question. We've heard through testimony that this proposed rule
could require forced teacher transfers, require costly overhauls of
district finance systems, and promote practices that serve to further
segregate poor students in the poorest schools.
You mention the rule ``provides regulatory barriers to effective
instructional services for students, interference in school autonomy in
staff recruitment and selection, intrusion in the deployment of
effective school leaders, unworkable criteria and unnecessary
requirements, additional costs, and unrealistic administratively
created obligations.''
As a district leader, what specific actions in the Des Moines
Public School system or other systems in which you've worked would you
need to take in order to comply with this proposed rule on supplement,
not supplant? What problems would those actions pose that run counter
to efforts to improve schools in your district?
Answer. What often seems to be lost on the Department is that our
ability to best serve schools with concentrated poverty that do not
benefit from title I funds will be jeopardized under the proposed
supplement, not supplant regulations if districts are forced to spend
additional State and local funds to cover the salary differentials
between higher paid and lower paid teachers. Many high poverty schools
are not served with title I because, frankly, there is not enough to go
around. While a 40 percent free/reduced rate can qualify a school for
title I services, there are currently 14 Des Moines schools with a
poverty rate between 73 percent and 40 percent that we are not able to
provide with title I services. The very children the legislation is
designed to support will be negatively impacted under the proposed
regulations.
Operationally, this proposed regulation would effectively require
salary equivalency between title and non-title schools or require
school districts to make up the difference with State and local funds.
Since the Nation's teacher salary system is primarily based on
increasing salary increments for years of experience (as well as for
advanced educational attainment), schools with older, higher paid staff
compared to younger, less highly paid staff would necessarily trigger
noncompliance on an unprecedented scale.
To comply, districts would have to spend additional State and local
funds to cover the salary differentials between higher paid and lower
paid teachers. Or, in an alternative compliance scenario, districts
potentially could shift their higher-paid teachers to title I schools
and their lower-paid teachers to non-title I schools. The Center of
American Progress (CAP) reported in 2012 that the cost of compliance
with this type of per-pupil comparability requirement would be $6.8
billion based on national data at the time, and in 2015 CAP estimated
the compliance cost at $8.5 billion nationally using the most recent
OCR expenditure data. The Council of the Great City Schools estimated
the compliance cost for their 69 member school districts could reach
$3.9 billion, ranging from millions to hundreds of millions of dollars
in individual districts. (C)
Unfortunately, neither of these options correlate with improving
student academic performance because, to state it simply: there is no
relationship between salary level and teacher effectiveness. This would
result in unwarranted disruptions in instructional continuity and
communities of practice in our schools.
Higher paid teachers teach for the same 6 hours daily and 180
school days annually as teachers with lower pay and less time in the
profession; students receive an equivalent level of service from their
teachers regardless of pay or years of service. Lower pay can be
attributed to a variety of factors including individuals entering the
profession later in life as a second career, the difference between
taking single or family coverage for insurance benefits, or advanced
educational attainment--which may or may not be in an area related to
the individual's teaching assignment. None of these factors translate
to the quality instruction provided by the teacher. The issue is
complicated and cannot be narrowed to the simplistic issues identified
in the draft regulations.
Moreover, current Federal requirements already ensure that at least
the same number of full-time equivalent teachers are deployed in title
I as in non-title I schools.
School districts clearly do not have the State and local funds to
cover the salary differential costs of compliance, nor should districts
disrupt instructional continuity and communities of practice in our
schools by summarily transferring teachers. Moreover, the teacher
transfer option would violate most collective bargaining agreements.
Many districts literally would be faced with an impossibility of
performance under these regulations--which have no reasonable basis in
the Act and appear to violate at least three separate statutory
prohibitions in ESSA. I hasten to add that neither of these solutions,
even if possible, reflect best education practice.
These operational concerns relate to regulatory barriers to
effective instructional services for students, interference in school
autonomy in staff recruitment, selection, and placement, unworkable
criteria, unnecessary requirements, additional costs, and unrealistic
administratively created obligations.
senator collins
Question. During Secretary King's confirmation hearing, I asked for
his assurance that the Department would engage rural communities in its
ESSA implementation processes. For example, I was alarmed that the
Department held its initial public listening sessions in DC and Los
Angeles. Rural districts also seem to have been underrepresented on the
committee of negotiators selected for the negotiated rulemaking.
It's vital that rural communities and rural educators have a seat
at the table. What should the Department be doing to ensure rural
communities are represented in its rulemaking?
In your States, what are you doing, as stakeholders, to ensure
rural voices are heard in your State and local planning efforts?
Answer. The Iowa Department of Education has organized internal
teams to begin work on Iowa's State plan to implement the provisions
included in ESSA. The Director of the Iowa Department of Education,
Ryan Wise, has assured superintendents in our 333 districts they will
have regular opportunities for timely and meaningful consultation with
relevant stakeholders, including parents, local educational agencies,
teachers, and principals, when developing the transition plan.
Even in Iowa, the broad range of individual district
characteristics and the students and families they serve vary widely.
It has been a long-standing practice of the Iowa Department of
Education to ensure representation of the diversity of our State and
its school districts when seeking input on important issues--rural,
urban, large and small districts, as well as the geographic
distribution of individuals providing input and the demographics of the
districts they represent.
I look forward to the development of a more thoughtful State
accountability system under ESSA, and we are working closely with our
State department of education on a statewide implementation process.
Senator Sanders
Question 1. We must do everything that we can to ensure that every
child--regardless of her or his circumstances--has access to a high-
quality education. We know that a high-quality education is a resource-
intensive endeavor. We also know that disadvantaged children need
additional resources to combat the ravages of poverty and
discrimination. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of
1965 marked the beginning of a strong role for the Federal Government
in combating inequities on both fronts. Clearly, there is much more
work that must be done.
A key component of the Federal Government's role in education is
ensuring that our schools have the additional resources needed to
ensure that every child can reach her or his full potential. Today,
over half of all public school children come from low-income families.
Examining the most recent data available, there is clearly an increased
need, as well as a lack of sufficient Federal resources to meet this
need (figure 1). Between school year 2004-5 and school year 2013-14 we
have seen a 32 percent increase in children eligible for free or
reduced lunch--an increase of over 6 million children.
Yet the main source of Federal funding for public schools serving
low-income children--Title I-A of ESEA--has not only not failed to keep
pace with the reality that our public schools are serving more low-
income children than a decade ago, funding has not even kept up with
inflation. Real title I-A funding is down 6 percent since fiscal year
2005 while the percentage of low-income kids in public schools has
increased by 32 percent over the same time period. If at a bare minimum
title-I-A funding had kept pace with inflation since fiscal year 2005,
appropriations for title-I-A would have been $15.2 billion in fiscal
year 2014 instead of $14.4 billion--a difference of nearly a billion
dollars. Furthermore, if title I-A funding had kept pace with both
inflation and the growing number of children coming from low-income
families since fiscal year 2005, title-I-A funding would have hit $20.2
billion in fiscal year 2014, a gap of over $5.5 billion when
considering reality versus actual funding (figure 2).
Dr. Ahart, can you please speak to the importance of Federal
education funding meeting the increased needs of our public schools?
Beyond a dramatic increase to title-I-A funding, what other funding
streams within ESEA and in other Federal programs require an increase
to meet the realities of today's public schools?
Answer 2. The changing demographics of Des Moines Public Schools
reflects the myriad of needs and potential barriers we face without
adequate funds in meeting the needs of all of our students and
supporting them in reaching high academic standards.
DMPS is a majority minority urban district, serving over 33,000
students, 58 percent of whom are minorities. Two ongoing challenges
faced by the district are poverty and the high number of students who
are English Language Learners.
The majority of families in the district are low-income, and this
rate has steadily increased over the past two decades. In 1993, only 33
percent of district students qualified for the Free and Reduced Lunch
(FRPL) program. This has increased to over 73 percent of students
qualifying today. Most schools provide free breakfast and lunch to
students. And the poverty levels continue to grow, as evidenced by
increased numbers of kindergarten students qualifying for FRPL in the
context of an increasing enrollment for the district. The poverty
levels in Des Moines' poorest zip codes, known as the Urban Core,
resemble other high poverty cities, such as Detroit or Philadelphia.
Figure 1 highlights the changes in K-12 enrollment with regard to
eligibility for free/reduced priced lunch, English language learner
programming, and special education services. DMPS mirrors the State's
upward trend of children eligible for free/reduced priced lunch through
2014-15. However, Iowa's rate of eligibility is lower than DMPS's, with
38.8 percent (2015-16 data not yet available) of students in Iowa
(excluding DMPS) eligible in 2014-15 and 74.8 percent of DMPS students
eligible in 2015-16.
The number of English language learner (ELL) students has steadily
increased in DMPS and Iowa. In the past 10 years, the ELL population at
DMPS has grown by over 70 percent. Currently, ELL students represent
20.6 percent of DMPS students. DMPS is ranked 11th in the State with
regard to percentage of ELL students. DMPS educates approximately 6,500
ELL students in grades K-12. The number of ELL students at DMPS is more
than the total number students enrolled at 96 percent of Iowa
districts. The percentage of students requiring special education
services has held steady in DMPS. In 2014-15, 12.6 percent (2015-16
data not yet available) of students statewide required services, while
15.1 percent of DMPS students required services in 2015-16.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Since the early 1970s, Iowa has chosen to serve as a resettlement
State for refugees from around the world. As a result, the number of
English Language Learners (ELL) at DMPS has greatly increased from 300
students who speak five native languages in the mid-1970's, to the
current level of 6,580 students (20.6 percent of students) speaking
over 100 different languages and dialects. The language barriers for
both students and their families create significant obstacles to
learning. Further complicating their learning is that many ELL's are
illiterate in their native languages. Parent communication with school
staff and their ability to assist their children with school work is
limited. As ELL students learn English, they often become one of the
only links between their linguistically isolated families and the world
within which they are trying to survive.
Additionally, student disengagement increases during the transition
from elementary to middle school. The percentage of DMPS students
proficient in reading dropped from 72 percent in 5th grade (2010-11) to
49 percent in 6th grade (2011-12). Furthermore, the Iowa Youth Survey
gauged the number of DMPS students who felt committed to school and
learning. Results show that the percentage significantly decreased
between elementary school (86 percent) to middle school (67 percent)
and stayed the same from middle school to high school (67 percent).
Students who drop out of school face significant consequences. They
earn lower wages, are eight times more likely to commit crimes, are
twice as likely to live in poverty, and earn $1,000,000 less than their
graduating peers over their lifetimes (Alliance for Excellent
Education, 2011).
The changing demographics of our district and the needs of our
students associated with these demographics demonstrate the need for
increased funding in the following title Programs:
Title I--Improving Basic Programs Offered by State and
Local Educational Agencies
Title II--Preparing, training, and recruiting high quality
teachers, principals, or other school leaders
Title II--Language Instruction for English Language
Learners and Immigrant Students
Title IV--21st Century Schools
Title V--State Innovation and Local Flexibility
Title VI--Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native
Education
Title VII--Impact Aid
Title IX--Education for the Homeless and Other Laws
Figure One:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure Two:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Question 2. Yesterday, on the 62d anniversary of the Brown v. Board
decision, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report
confirming what educators, families, students, and community
stakeholders have been telling us anecdotally for some time--our public
schools are becoming more segregated by both race and family income.
The number of schools that are doubly segregated by both race and
income--where 75 percent or more of the kids at these schools come from
low-income families and are black or Hispanic--has increased from 9
percent of all public schools in school year 2000-2001 to 16 percent of
all public schools in school year 2013-14. Additionally, today, nearly
one in five public students attend these doubly segregated public
schools--more than double the amount of kids who attended these schools
almost 15 years ago. Furthermore, Hispanic children are often triply
segregated by race, family income, and native language. Shamefully,
nearly two-thirds--61 percent--of all high-poverty schools are schools
where over 75 percent or more of the children are black and Hispanic.
Segregation and isolation by race and income in our public school
is an alarming phenomenon on its own. Even more troubling is that the
fact that these doubly segregated schools are not offering students a
comparable education to non-segregated schools and schools at the other
end of the spectrum that are wealthy and predominately white. The GAO
report uncovers that these doubly segregated schools have fewer
resources, do not offer the full range of core courses like math and
science, offer less advanced coursework, and have disproportionately
more disciplinary actions than other public schools.
I'd like to ask this entire panel--what can the Federal Government
do to reverse this troubling trend of segregation by race and income,
and ensure an equal and adequate education for all children? Please
feel free to expound on reforms within education and greater system
wide changes including housing, transportation, jobs, and more.
Additionally, through the implementation of the Every Student Succeeds
Act (ESSA) what can the Department of Education do to make States and
school districts aware of opportunities within this new law to increase
racial and socioeconomic diversity in our schools?
Answer 2. Best and promising practices regarding counteracting the
re-segregation of schools include:
1. Additional incentives, training, and support for teachers to
work in diverse/urban environments.
a. Urban districts can often compete for new highly qualified
teachers in terms of salary and benefits, but struggle with adequate
housing, appropriate training.
b. Programs in DMPS like the Alternative teacher Contract which
offer specific training, with longer commitment and a Master degree fit
these needs and show increasing promise.
2. Equitable facilities funding.
a. Many families are drawn to districts that have competitive
advantages, from state-of-the-art Libraries, modern gymnasiums,
innovated laboratories, and athletic fields, families with means are
determining where they would like to settle based on the amenities the
school offers.
b. New buildings in DMPS has improved moral, provided enhanced
opportunity/ Suburban districts continue to see benefit from facilities
upgrades in all areas as well.
3. Redraw school attendance boundaries in a way that captures a
more diverse student population, including the consideration for
specific program opportunities unique to a geographical location.
a. State like Iowa would benefit from school districts that are
struggling to maintain capacity.
b. Internal boundary changes have created more equitable
opportunities for students, District is working on tackling greater
access to gifted and talented programing. DMPS has already seen impact
in AP programming.
4. Additional competitive grants to encourage diversity and will
work with other agencies to encourage more integrated schools and
communities. Such as the new I3 grant.
a. Resources are an indicator of priority. Current grant funding
has been highly effective in increasing the capacity, accountability,
and fidelity of implementation for other initiatives. Additional grant
funding would allow innovative practices to prove effectiveness and
establishing scalability.
5. Reinforcement of school segregation policies to consider income.
a. School re-segregation largely intersects race with income as an
effect on the impact.
senator whitehouse
Question 1. ESSA is a relief to many, especially in Rhode Island.
Everyone who I've talked to is very excited about this bipartisan bill
and the opportunities it presents.
I am concerned about the supplement, not supplant issue. Many of
you have said that ED's proposed regulations on ``supplement, not
supplant'' are an overreach. But I am also aware of many inequities
that exist in local and State funding for education.
Absolutely no one wants to see Federal money come in and provide an
excuse to send other funding into wealthier, well-connected school
districts and have title I fill the gap.
I've heard from many about the problems with ED's draft proposal.
My question is not what are the problems, but what should ED do
instead? That is, what would you affirmatively propose to ensure that
title I funds are supplemental and not supplanting State and local
funds?
Answer 1. The Title I Statement of Purpose declares:
The purpose of this title is to provide all children
significant opportunity to receive a fair, equitable, and high-
quality education, and to close educational achievement gaps.
Further, section 1111 delineates the obligation of States to file a
State plan that is:
. . . developed by the State educational agency with timely
and meaningful consultation with the Governor, members of the
State legislature and State board of education (if the State
has a State board of education), local education agencies
(including those located in rural areas), representatives of
Indian tribes located in the State, teachers, principals, other
school leaders, charter school leaders (if the State has
charter schools), specialized instructional support personnel,
paraprofessionals, administrations, other staff, and parents .
. .
States and local school districts have widely diverse
characteristics related to their size, local funding, demographics of
the students they serve, and State laws that govern public schools.
Let those closest to the local school districts and the students
and families we serve determine what the qualities of a fair,
equitable, and high-quality education are that will close educational
achievement gaps.
Use the processes put into place by ESSA, along with the knowledge
and skills of these on the ESSA planning committees, to develop a State
plan to ensure title I funds are supplemental and not supplanting State
and local funds.
And most importantly, allow these planning committees to put
together a plan that ensures an equitable education for all children--
remembering that equitable does not mean equal. The only hope for
successful results from ESSA rests in the State agencies' ability to
craft guidance that is meaningful to individual State and district
contexts.
Question 2. Under NCLB and the Obama administration's waivers, I
consistently heard from Rhode Island teachers and principals that they
could achieve better results if not for the layers of bureaucracy
stifling innovation at multiple levels.
I am very pleased that ESSA is a step away from that one-size-fits-
all, overly prescriptive posture. You have all heard me talk about the
provisions I fought for in ESSA--requiring States to describe how they
will encourage opportunities for increased autonomy and flexibility.
I am concerned because I do not want to see ED use the regulatory
process to grab back the control that ESSA intended to push down to the
State and local level. What could ED do on the supplement, not supplant
issue that would support greater innovation at the local level?
Answer 2. While regulations are intended to clarify provisions of
the statute and facilitate effective implementation, many of the
regulatory provisions appear to restrict, condition, redefine, and even
expand ESSA.
These operational concerns relate to regulatory barriers to
effective instructional services for students, interference in school
autonomy in staff recruitment, selection, and placement, unworkable
criteria, unnecessary requirements, additional costs, and unrealistic
administratively created obligations.
The Education Department could be helpful in issuing non-regulatory
guidance that provides a non-exclusive range of examples of
implementation options for various provisions of ESSA. There is no such
thing as one-size-fits-all. Even in Iowa, the broad range of individual
district characteristics vary widely.
In addition, use the processes put into place by ESSA, along with
the knowledge and skills of those charged with developing a State plan
to ensure title I funds are supplemental and not supplanting State and
local funds.
And most importantly, allow these planning committees ESSA charged
with putting together a State plan to do their jobs. These are the
people best able to put together an innovative plan that provides for
equity, understanding that does not mean equal.
The only hope for successful results from ESSA rests in the State
agencies' ability to craft guidance that is meaningful to individual
State and district contexts.
Response by Nora Gordon, Ph.D. to Questions of Chairman Alexander,
Senator Sanders, and Senator Whitehouse
chairman alexander
Question. In your testimony, you discuss how prior to the new law,
compliance with Supplement, not Supplant was typically determined by
districts detailing individual costs and proving that everything paid
for by title I money was extra for students.
You note that this was a burdensome practice that often led to
inefficient spending.
However, the changes Congress made to ``Supplement, not Supplant''
actually serve to encourage more effective spending with title I money
and decrease compliance burden for school districts, and the proposed
rule actually runs counter to congressional intent.
How does the proposed rule run counter to congressional intent by
actually increasing the burden and discouraging better, flexible
spending decisions by local school districts and schools?
Answer. The proposed rule would not simply ``undo'' the
congressional intent in ESSA to encourage effective spending. Rather,
it would require school districts to change how they allocate State and
local resources across schools. Many districts would not comply with
the rule, even if they allocate more teachers to high--poverty schools.
In the CRDC data, I have identified districts that weight additionally
for student poverty, using student-based budgeting/weighted student
formulas (which are largely viewed as one of the most equitable
approaches to funding schools) that would fail to comply with the rule.
The reasons for non-compliance likely vary--but one reason could be
that high-poverty students who generate more funds--may not all be
concentrated only in title I schools.
Many non-title I schools have high poverty levels. I analyzed the
2011-12 Common Core of Data Public School Universe and found (of those
schools reporting free-lunch eligibility data) 9,015 schools that do
not participate in title I and have at least 40 percent of their
students eligible for free lunch; of these non-title I schools, 2,826
had at least 60 percent of their students eligible for free lunch.
To comply with the proposed rule, districts would be forced to make
annual after-the-fact adjustments to their staffing and other
distributions of funds. The adjustments needed to comply with the
proposed rule would in fact make it quite difficult to comply with
statutory language itself (requiring a methodology that demonstrates
title I schools do not get less State and local funds because of their
participation in title I), because consistently applied methodologies
would likely fail to deliver the result required by the draft rule.
Rather than encouraging innovation and transparency, the proposed
rule would push districts away from consistent resource allocation
methods that permit leaders to plan coherently and effectively for the
future.
senator sanders
Question. Yesterday, on the 62d anniversary of the Brown v. Board
decision, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report
confirming what educators, families, students, and community
stakeholders have been telling us anecdotally for some time--our public
schools are becoming more segregated by both race and family income.
The number of schools that are doubly segregated by both race and
income--where 75 percent or more of the kids at these schools come from
low-income families and are black or Hispanic--has increased from 9
percent of all public schools in school year 2000-2001 to 16 percent of
all public schools in school year 2013-14. Additionally, today, nearly
one in five public students attend these doubly segregated public
schools--more than double the amount of kids who attended these schools
almost 15 years ago. Furthermore, Hispanic children are often triply
segregated by race, family income, and native language. Shamefully,
nearly two-thirds--61 percent--of all high-poverty schools are schools
where over 75 percent or more of the children are black and Hispanic.
Segregation and isolation by race and income in our public school
is an alarming phenomenon on its own. Even more troubling is that the
fact that these doubly segregated schools are not offering students a
comparable education to non-segregated schools and schools at the other
end of the spectrum that are wealthy and predominately white. The GAO
report uncovers that these doubly segregated schools have fewer
resources, do not offer the full range of core courses like math and
science, offer less advanced coursework, and have disproportionately
more disciplinary actions than other public schools.
I'd like to ask this entire panel--what can the Federal Government
do to reverse this troubling trend of segregation by race and income,
and ensure an equal and adequate education for all children? Please
feel free to expound on reforms within education and greater system
wide changes including housing, transportation, jobs, and more.
Additionally, through the implementation of the Every Student Succeeds
Act (ESSA) what can the Department of Education do to make States and
school districts aware of opportunities within this new law to increase
racial and socioeconomic diversity in our schools?
Answer. Local approaches to school desegregation often involve
extra costs. For example, voluntary integration plans, whether magnets
or more general intradistrict choice options, may offer special
programming to all students in order to draw students from a wealthier
attendance area to a low-income attendance area. Alternatively, a
district may provide additional funds or services to low-income
disadvantaged students in economic integration programs in order to
provide additional supports to these students in more rigorous school
settings (which can be in higher wealth attendance areas.) These
expensive programs may take place outside of title I schools, and
outside of high poverty schools within diverse districts. In addition
to actions such as those now being pursued to encourage cross-agency
efforts tackling segregation in education and housing, and the role of
transportation, ED should be sure its interpretation of SNS does not
rule out such racial and economic integration efforts.
senator whitehouse
Question 1. ESSA is a relief to many, especially in Rhode Island.
Everyone who I've talked to is very excited about this bipartisan bill
and the opportunities it presents.
I am concerned about the supplement, not supplant issue. Many of
you have said that ED's proposed regulations on ``supplement, not
supplant'' are an overreach. But I am also aware of many inequities
that exist in local and State funding for education.
Absolutely no one wants to see Federal money come in and provide an
excuse to send other funding into wealthier, well-connected school
districts and have title I fill the gap.
I've heard from many about the problems with ED's draft proposal.
My question is not what are the problems, but what should ED do
instead? That is, what would you affirmatively propose to ensure that
title I funds are supplemental and not supplanting State and local
funds?
Answer 1. In ESSA, Congress set forth an actual test of whether
title I funds are supplemental and not supplanting State and local
funds in a title I school. Under the test, each LEA must describe how
it allocates funds across schools, and demonstrate that this
methodology does not result in title I schools receiving fewer State
and local dollars than they would were they not participating in the
title I program.
In the discussion surrounding ED's draft proposal, it has somehow
been assumed that absent this proposal, ED would not be doing anything
to ensure the integrity of program funds via this new, clear, easily
tested SNS standard. To the contrary, ED and SEAs, must enforce the
law, and the law sets a new high bar for SNS.
For more details on how districts could be sure they are meeting
the new standard--which under NCLB was optional for schoolwide programs
under NCLB--ED's July 2015 schoolwide program guidance is a useful
tool. The same test that was optional (and rarely used) under NCLB for
SWP schools, is now required rather than optional under ESSA. The
explanation in ED's July 2015 schoolwide guidance, which is consistent
with the ESSA language, should be the basis for compliance with SNS.
July, 2015--ESEA Title I Schoolwide Guidance, Non-
Regulatory Guidance PDF (3.30MB).
Congress and ED should also ensure that ESSA's new reporting
requirements are used to produce high-quality data that can inform
future Federal decisionmaking. Though there have been past efforts at
collecting school-level finance data based on actual, not average,
teacher salaries, given existing data infrastructure in districts, the
reliability of these data is unclear. ED can help promote the integrity
of future data by: (1) seeking extensive feedback from State and local
agencies about how their accounting systems are currently structured,
because any Federal reporting requirements will pull from these
frameworks and aligning Federal reporting with existing data elements
will both lessen local burden and improve Federal data quality; and (2)
cross-validate data for randomly selected districts with any available
local administrative sources.
Question 2. Under NCLB and the Obama administration's waivers, I
consistently heard from Rhode Island teachers and principals that they
could achieve better results if not for the layers of bureaucracy
stifling innovation at multiple levels.
I am very pleased that ESSA is a step away from that one-size-fits-
all, overly prescriptive posture. You have all heard me talk about the
provisions I fought for in ESSA--requiring States to describe how they
will encourage opportunities for increased autonomy and flexibility.
I am concerned because I do not want to see ED use the regulatory
process to grab back the control that ESSA intended to push down to the
State and local level. What could ED do on the supplement, not supplant
issue that would support greater innovation at the local level?
Answer 2. Congress' approach to SNS opens title I to innovative
uses of funds. As I have documented in my research with Sarah Reber,
confusion over the SNS requirement led to significant bureaucratic
requirements, and perhaps more importantly, title I being ``locked
out'' for innovative programs that are good for students.\1\ The most
important thing ED can do to encourage innovation with title I funds is
to make sure SEAs and LEAs understand their spending options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Gordon, Nora and Sarah Reber. 2015. ``The Quest for a Targeted
and Effective Title I: Challenges in Designing and Implementing Fiscal
Compliance Rules.'' RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the
Social Sciences, 1(3), 129-147.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At this point, ED has built up a sizable body of nonregulatory
policy guidance that in some way relates to the pre-ESSA version of
supplement, not supplant. Whether ED clarifies SNS under ESSA through
regulations, through non-regulatory guidance, or lets the statutory
language speak for itself, it is imperative to strike old guidance that
relates to the pre-ESSA definition of SNS. These documents should be
removed from ED's Web site. ED should actively engage with SEAs to be
sure that they also remove the documents which they post on their own
State Web sites as well, and encourage States to communicate the new
requirements clearly to their LEAs. In each of these cases, ED should
communicate the new rule as described in the July 2015 schoolwide
guidance.
This is not a straightforward process, because in many cases, SNS
is just one small part of a larger guidance document. ED should not
leave them intact (including outdated text) even if noting in another
document that it supersedes the previous guidance. Rather it should
create a new version of the old one, that either removes all reference
to SNS or replaces the old language with new language.
This would be an excellent opportunity to modernize the user-
interface on ED's guidance, so that users can search across what are
now multiple documents from a web browser (if they do not know which
documents will be relevant to their question), rather than downloading
numerous PDF documents and searching one by one.
Even the July 2015 schoolwide guidance, which was the clearest
communication yet of the rule, noted that the guidance should be used
with other pre-existing guidance. ED should facilitate understanding of
the rule by putting everything in one place, so administrators do not
need to seek out the SNS portion of multiple documents.
Here is a (likely not exhaustive) list of now-outdated guidance
documents:
November 2010--When to Treat Expenditures of Education
Jobs Funds as State or Local Funds for Purposes of the Fiscal
Requirements under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 WORD (471K) / PDF (271K).
September 3, 2009--Title I, Part A Recovery Funds for
Grants to Local Educational Agencies Uses of Funds Guidance.
March 2010--Title I, Part A Guidance on Funds Made
Available under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(ARRA): http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/guidance/title-i-
rev-201003.doc.
February, 2008--Fiscal Issues: Title I, Part A, Non-
Regulatory Guidance MS WORD (995K) / PDF (254K).
Note: I am including schoolwide guidance documents below despite
their previous allowed use of the new SNS test because one could get
the mistaken impression from these that the new SNS test is optional
for schoolwide programs, and that it is prohibited for targeted
assistance schools.
October 13, 2015--ESEA Title I Schoolwide Guidance Webinar
(PPT) PDF (3.63MB).
July, 2015--ESEA Title I Schoolwide Guidance, Non-
Regulatory Guidance PDF (3.30MB).
March, 2006--Designing Schoolwide Programs, Non-Regulatory
Guidance MS WORD (452K).
Guidance on Targeted Assistance Schools: http://www2.ed.
gov/legislation/ESEA/Title_I/target.html.
Finally, ED should devote a section of its Web site to showcasing
innovative uses of title I funds. SEAs and LEAs could submit ideas and
ED could write up very short descriptions of the programs. ED might
seek to encourage submission of cases in which LEAs have partnered with
other local not for profit or governmental agencies to provide
services, or when LEAs have fiscally consolidated funds. Local
administrators could comment briefly on hurdles they overcame and what
they were newly able to accomplish.
Response by Denise Marshall to Questions of Senator Collins, Senator
Sanders, and Senator Whitehouse
senator collins
Question. During Secretary King's confirmation hearing, I asked for
his assurance that the Department would engage rural communities in its
ESSA implementation processes. For example, I was alarmed that the
Department held its initial public listening sessions in DC and Los
Angeles. Rural districts also seem to have been underrepresented on the
committee of negotiators selected for the negotiated rulemaking.
It's vital that rural communities and rural educators have a seat
at the table. What should the Department be doing to ensure rural
communities are represented in its rulemaking?
In your States, what are you doing, as stakeholders, to ensure
rural voices are heard in your State and local planning efforts?
Answer. COPAA is actively engaged with the business, civil rights
and disability communities in developing resources for broad
distribution and training to help stakeholders know how to work within
their State to influence title I plan development. There is an effort
to assure that issues such as those facing rural communities will be
given attention so that parents and advocates in those communities will
know how to engage and connect in their State planning process.
senator sanders
Question 1. We must do everything that we can to ensure that every
child--regardless of her or his circumstances--has access to a high-
quality education. We know that a high-quality education is a resource-
intensive endeavor. We also know that disadvantaged children need
additional resources to combat the ravages of poverty and
discrimination. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of
1965 marked the beginning of a strong role for the Federal Government
in combating inequities on both fronts. Clearly, there is much more
work that must be done.
A key component of the Federal Government's role in education is
ensuring that our schools have the additional resources needed to
ensure that every child can reach her or his full potential. Today,
over half of all public school children come from low-income families.
Examining the most recent data available, there is clearly an increased
need, as well as a lack of sufficient Federal resources to meet this
need (figure 1). Between school year 2004-5 and school year 2013-14 we
have seen a 32 percent increase in children eligible for free or
reduced lunch--an increase of over 6 million children.
Yet the main source of Federal funding for public schools serving
low-income children--Title I-A of ESEA--has not only not failed to keep
pace with the reality that our public schools are serving more low-
income children than a decade ago, funding has not even kept up with
inflation. Real title I-A funding is down 6 percent since fiscal year
2005 while the percentage of low-income kids in public schools has
increased by 32 percent over the same time period. If at a bare minimum
title-I-A funding had kept pace with inflation since fiscal year 2005,
appropriations for title-I-A would have been $15.2 billion in fiscal
year 2014 instead of $14.4 billion--a difference of nearly a billion
dollars. Furthermore, if title I-A funding had kept pace with both
inflation and the growing number of children coming from low-income
families since fiscal year 2005, title-I-A funding would have hit $20.2
billion in fiscal year 2014, a gap of over $5.5 billion when
considering reality versus actual funding (figure 2).
Ms. Marshall, can you please speak to the importance of Federal
education funding meeting the increased needs of our public schools?
Beyond a dramatic increase to title-I-A funding, what other funding
streams within ESEA and in other Federal programs require an increase
to meet the realities of today's public schools?
Answer 1. Schools and districts continue to struggle to meet the
educational needs of all students and especially those of students with
disabilities. COPAA has long advocated for increases to all Titles of
ESEA and in addition to title I-A, increased funding for titles II-IV
are imperative so that ESEA--now the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
can be implemented effectively by providing the professional
development, English Learner funds and important grants to States. In
addition, for over 40 years, Congress has failed to meet its obligation
to States as promised in 1975 when P.L. 94-142 was passed which is now
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). To date, States
don't receive even half of the funds promised under Part B of the
IDEA--with just 16 percent of the per pupil expenditure currently
covered when 40 percent of such funds were part of the original
agreement. COPAA urges the Senate to fully fund the IDEA.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure Two:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Question 2. It is abundantly clear that low-income and
disadvantaged children need additional support in order to succeed.
That is why, title-I-A education funding is supposed to be in addition
to and not in-lieu of local and State education funding. Since 1970,
Congress has included supplement, not supplant (SNS) provisions in ESEA
to codify this fundamental principle.
The Negotiated Rulemaking Committee for Title I, Part A of ESEA as
amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act was unable to meet consensus
on SNS regulations. It is now up to the U.S. Department of Education to
draft regulations on SNS that ensure that Federal funding is on top of
State and local funding and not used as backfill to compensate for
unfair State and local spending practices on education.
Ms. Marshall, can you speak to the importance of the Department of
Education crafting strong regulations for SNS? Ms. Marshall, what would
a strong SNS regulation mean for the 6.4 million children with
disabilities in our public schools? Ms. Murguia, what would a strong
SNS regulation mean for children of color including Latino girls and
boys who represent a majority of the children in our public schools,
and what would it mean for English Language Learners? Finally, what
progress can be made for all students if title-I-A funding is truly
supplemental?
Answer 2. COPAA is in agreement with the Leadership Conference on
Human and Civil Rights on this. We have signed a letter that says to
the Congress and to the U.S. Department of Education:
A strong SNS regulation would mean that the U.S. Department
of Education would measure compliance by examining actual
school level expenditures, which builds upon the ESSA's new
reporting requirements. In order for Federal funds to be
considered supplemental, each title I school must receive from
State and local sources at least as much per-pupil funding as
the average of non-title I schools in the district. Unless
title I schools are receiving an equitable base of funds from
non-Federal sources to ensure that the Federal funds are truly
supplemental, then title I funds are being used to supplant by
filling in gaps of funds the schools should be receiving. This
is a violation of the law. A comparison of spending between
each title I and the average of non-title I schools allows for
considerable variability among both title I and non-title I
schools in State and local expenditures, therefore not running
afoul of the law's prohibition against requiring the
equalization of spending.
Compliance with an ``actual expenditures test'' also
recognizes the reality that equitable means fair, not equal--
underscoring the law's aim to ensure that students impacted by
concentrated poverty have the unique supports and services that
will address their needs. This also preserves flexibility for
districts to use weighted student funding, formulas for
staffing and materials, or any other methodology for allocating
State and local funds to schools. The integrity of title I
funds must be preserved to fully realize the aim of ensuring
equity and equal access to quality educational opportunities.
COPAA believes the progress we could expect to see from such
regulation would result in equities that research and effective/best
practice show result in healthy, safe and outcomes-driven school
environments where school leaders, teachers, support personnel and
students have a stronger shot at having what they need. Access to AP
classes, up-to-date technology, expanded learning time, experienced
educators, basic clean and safe facilities, at a minimum will
contribute to assuring student achievement will rise and learning gaps
will close.
Question 3. I am very concerned that our schools and communities
are dealing with a surge of students exposed to multiple adverse
experiences and are not equipped with the resources, training, and
support to accommodate this crisis.
According to the national Adverse Childhood Experience Study, over
half of those surveyed reported at least one form of childhood
adversity. Shockingly, two in three children in our Nation--46 million
children--are exposed to violence, crime, abuse, or psychological
trauma a year. In Vermont, over 20 percent of children have had two or
more adverse experiences, which include traumatic events like living in
chronic poverty, living with someone with a substance abuse problem,
experiencing community or family violence, and more. Even more alarming
is the fact that our youngest citizens and their parents are at the
forefront of this crisis. Since 2014, the Department for Children and
Families in Vermont has seen a 33 percent increase of children in State
custody with children under the age of six making up more than two-
thirds of this increase. Further, similar to nationwide trends, over 40
percent of children come from low-income families in my home State,
with young children the most likely of any age group to be poor.
Ms. Marshall, what can the Department of Education do to help
schools, educators, and communities be prepared to deliver trauma-
informed approaches to education when implementing the Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESSA)? Additionally, what can the Department of Education
do to ensure that educators teaching in environments where a large
percentage of students have had adverse childhood experiences (ACEs)
have the support and the self-care they need to succeed? Furthermore,
what policies should Congress enact to help communities combat these
challenges and attack the root causes--like poverty, exposure to
violence and substance abuse--driving these adverse experiences? How
would increased Federal investments in child care, preschool, maternal
and child home visiting, before-school, afterschool, and summer
programming, nutritional supports, wrap-around services for schools and
more help to fight this crisis? Likewise, how would raising the Federal
minimum wage, addressing under-employment and unemployment,
implementing paid family leave, and enacting universal health care
coverage help attack the root causes of these adverse experiences?
As national education leaders, what plans are your organizations
making to work with States to ensure that their schools and
practitioners have trauma-informed approached to education? How will
you make States and school districts aware of opportunities under ESSA
to create trauma-informed environments?
Answer 3. COPAA has actively engaged with the disability and civil
rights community to promote the use of best practices to provide
trauma-informed care--in both our policy and advocacy work. We know
that traumatizing experiences, which include the use of aversives such
as seclusion and restraint, can affect children's brain development and
behavior. In fact, children with intellectual and/or developmental
disabilities (IDDs) are at greater risk than the general population for
experiencing abuse, neglect, and the associated trauma. Behaviors
resulting from trauma can create challenging and sometimes dangerous
situations for the child, providers, and educators.
Historically, seclusion and restraint have been used to control the
behavior challenges of children with mental health conditions in
psychiatric hospitals, treatment facilities, and schools.\1\ For
decades, it was frequently thought that, without effective seclusion
and restraint practices, children, youth, and adults were in danger of
injuring themselves and others.\2\ Children continue to be subjected to
seclusion and restraint interventions at high rates and are at risk of
injury from these practices.\3\ The controversial practice of secluding
or restraining children when they are agitated continues to be used in
public schools. Yet, research confirms that seclusion and restraint
practices re-traumatize children, increase rather than decrease
challenging behaviors, and do not calm the child. Even if no physical
injury is sustained, children, especially those with an IDD, are at
risk of traumatization and re-traumatization during and after use of
seclusion and restraint. A child does not learn meaningful lessons on
alternative ways to communicate or interact when a teacher or treatment
staff member responds to the child's challenging behavior with
seclusion and restraint. For decades, policymakers, clinicians,
teachers, school principals, and direct care providers in child-serving
systems have been challenged with not just reducing but eliminating
seclusion and restraint as control and safety interventions. Teachers
must know how to replace these practices with effective, non-
traumatizing practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Haimowitz, S., Urff, J., & Huckshorn, K.A. (2006, September).
Restraint and seclusion: A risk management guide. Retrieved from http:/
/www.power2u.org/downloads/R-S%20Risk%20
Manag%20Guide%20Oct%2006.pdf.
\2\ American Nurses Association. (2012, March 2). Reduction of
patient restraint and seclusion in health care settings. Retrieved from
http://www.nursingworld.org/MainMenuCategories/
EthicsStandards/Ethics-Position-Statements/Reduction-of-Patient-
Restraint-and-Seclusion-in-
Health-Care-Settings.pdf.
\3\ Alliance to Prevent Restraint, Aversive Interventions, and
Seclusion. (2008). In the name of treatment: A parent's guide to
protecting your child from the use of restraint, aversive
interventions, and seclusion (2d ed.). Retrieved from http://
stophurtingkids.com/wp-content/uploads/
2013/05/In-the-Name-of-Treatment_Second-Edition.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trends in public policy have also reflected a discontent in the use
of seclusion, restraint, and aversive procedures. A consensus has
emerged within children's mental health settings, hospitals, nursing
homes, and psychiatric facilities over the last two decades that
restraint and seclusion should not be included in treatment plans, and
that restraint should be used only for emergencies and targeted for
elimination. Instead, practices should be based on ``trauma informed
care'' requiring an awareness of the psychological effects of aversive
actions on children. Elements of trauma informed care mirror the
standards of positive behavior support to address students who exhibit
extremely challenging behaviors.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Westling et al. (2010). Use of Restraints, Seclusion and
Aversives on Students with Disabilities, Research & Practice for
Persons with Severe Disabilities. Vol. 35, No. 3Y4, 116-127.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eliminating seclusion and restraint is a trauma-informed practice.
Being trauma informed requires a paradigm shift for educators and other
child-serving providers in addressing behavioral challenges. A trauma-
informed approach requires providers to change the question from ``What
is wrong with you?'' to ``What happened to you?'' \5\ Trauma-informed
practices help children, teachers, and providers feel safe, protected,
and valued. Trauma sensitive schools are schools where teachers and
administrators comprehend the prevalence of childhood trauma, a place
where students have the opportunity to build trusting relationships
with nurturing adults, a place where instructional strategies are based
on an understanding of the neurobiology of trauma, and a place where
behaviors present a learning opportunity.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Alameda County Behavioral Healthcare Services. (2013). Trauma
informed care vs. trauma specific treatment. Retrieved from http://
alamedacountytraumainformedcare.org/trauma-informed-care/trauma-
informed-care-vs-trauma-specific-treatment-2/.
\6\ Cole, Susan. (2009). http://traumasensitiveschools.org/tlpi-
publications/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Students with disabilities and students of color continue to be
subjected to disproportionate use of suspension and expulsion according
to the 2014-2015 U.S. Department of Education Civil Rights Data
Collection. While students receiving special education services
represent just 12 percent of students nationally, they represent 25
percent of students receiving multiple out of school suspensions. We
know from research that children who are suspended more than once by
ninth grade are more likely to drop out of school or be retained in a
grade. Schools with exclusionary practices have poor attendance rates,
high drop-out rates, low graduation rates, and higher incidences of
bullying. In addition, they have been shown to have lower achievement
scores on State standardized tests. Children who are suspended more
than once in high school are much more likely to be involved in the
court system in early adulthood, thus creating a phenomenon known as
the school to prison pipeline.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Losen et al. (2015). Are We Closing the School Discipline Gap?
UCLA Center for Civil Rights Remedies. https://
www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/resources/projects/center-for-civil-
rights-
remedies/school-to-prison-folder/federal-reports/are-we-closing-the-
school-discipline-gap/AreWe
ClosingTheSchoolDisciplineGap_FINAL221.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPAA is committed to working with stakeholders across the country
to reinforce ESSA's new title I requirement [for which we helped
advocate] that States show districts how they support their efforts to
``reduce bullying, harassment, use of disciplinary practices and use of
aversives.'' Regulations must make clear that ESSA provides the
professional development resources for district and school staff to
receive training, strategies, and guidance on interventions which
create inclusive, trauma informed and culturally responsive
environments for students and educators which take into account input
from the parents and communities they serve. Regulations must also
clarify that States must articulate in title I plans how they will
provide resources and guidance, professional development, and technical
assistance to reduce or remove the use of techniques, strategies,
interventions, and policies that compromise the health and safety of
students, such as seclusion and restraint.
Question 4. Yesterday, on the 62d anniversary of the Brown v. Board
decision, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report
confirming what educators, families, students, and community
stakeholders have been telling us anecdotally for some time--our public
schools are becoming more segregated by both race and family income.
The number of schools that are doubly segregated by both race and
income--where 75 percent or more of the kids at these schools come from
low-income families and are black or Hispanic--has increased from 9
percent of all public schools in school year 2000-2001 to 16 percent of
all public schools in school year 2013-14. Additionally, today, nearly
one in five public students attend these doubly segregated public
schools--more than double the amount of kids who attended these schools
almost 15 years ago. Furthermore, Hispanic children are often triply
segregated by race, family income, and native language. Shamefully,
nearly two-thirds--61 percent--of all high-poverty schools are schools
where over 75 percent or more of the children are black and Hispanic.
Segregation and isolation by race and income in our public school
is an alarming phenomenon on its own. Even more troubling is that the
fact that these doubly segregated schools are not offering students a
comparable education to non-segregated schools and schools at the other
end of the spectrum that are wealthy and predominately white. The GAO
report uncovers that these doubly segregated schools have fewer
resources, do not offer the full range of core courses like math and
science, offer less advanced coursework, and have disproportionately
more disciplinary actions than other public schools.
I'd like to ask this entire panel--what can the Federal Government
do to reverse this troubling trend of segregation by race and income,
and ensure an equal and adequate education for all children? Please
feel free to expound on reforms within education and greater system
wide changes including housing, transportation, jobs, and more.
Additionally, through the implementation of the Every Student Succeeds
Act (ESSA) what can the Department of Education do to make States and
school districts aware of opportunities within this new law to increase
racial and socioeconomic diversity in our schools?
Answer 4. The ESEA is a civil rights law and implementation of ESSA
should preserve that legacy. The law's purpose is in fact: ``To provide
all children significant opportunity to receive a fair, equitable, and
high-quality education, and to close educational achievement gaps.''
COPAA and the entire civil rights community has long recognized equal
educational opportunity as central to our struggle to achieve equality
for all Americans. Without a robust and thoughtful implementation of
ESSA over the next decade, we will have missed a crucial opportunity
and the students we collectively represent will continue to be denied
the full protections they need and are entitled to under Federal law.
For today's students--whether a student with a disability, from a low-
income family, a student who speaks English as a second language,
Native American or a student of color--both the expectations and the
stakes couldn't be higher. Their future is hugely dependent on the
quality of the education they receive--there is no arguing this point.
The roots of ESSA are born out of Brown v. Board as it extends the
Fourteenth Amendment to effectively impact the exclusion and
limitations of instruction based on impermissible classifications.
Further, it serves as a foundation for the disability rights movement
in the 1970s, once de jure segregation based on race was resolved as a
legal matter by legislation and court orders in 1970-71. COPAA has
written extensively on the historical preeminence of Brown and other
landmark cases to both preserve the legacy of the path carved toward
equal access and the civil rights of children and their families,\8\
but to also document how each case can be used to support and reinforce
what we know is true and that is education, regardless of race, income,
disability, gender, religion or other is a civil right.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Zimring, et al. (2013). The IDEA/EHA in Congress and the
Supreme Court 1970-2012 What Lessons Can We Learn and What Can We Do
Planning Litigation Strategies for the 21st Century. file:///C:/Users/
lkalo/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/Content.Outlook/
77YHW6NP/2013Pres.pdf.
Question 5. Relatedly, Ms. Eskelsen Garcia, Ms. Marshall, Ms.
Murguia, and Ms. Weingarten, ESSA provides States and local school
districts more autonomy to make key educational decisions. What are
your organizations' plans to make States and local school districts
aware of opportunities to increase diversity under this new law?
Additionally, what other tools or resources do States and communities
need to tackle the difficult task of diversifying our schools and
providing equal and adequate education for all students?
Answer 5. COPAA is at the forefront of advocacy for students with
disabilities and their families. COPAA works to increase the quality
and quantity of representation available to students and their families
and to ensure the rights of children with disabilities and their
parents/guardians are protected. As an organization committed to civil
rights, COPAA recognizes the relationship between discrimination and
bias against people with disabilities and other forms or systems of
oppression, domination, or discrimination based on race, national
origin, ethnic and/or religious identity, sex/gender/gender identity/
sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status.
COPAA is committed to considering fully, in all activities and
programs, the intersectionality of race, national origin, ethnic,
cultural and/or religious identity, sexual/gender identity/ sexual
orientation, socioeconomic status, in our efforts to protect and
enforce the legal and civil rights of students with disabilities and
their families.
It is critical that specific title I regulations assure States
implement plans that fully support all students.
COPAA takes seriously the impact title I implementation has on the
outcomes of students with disabilities and other disadvantaged
students. As stated, we understand States will have more discretion in
carrying out ESSA, however, COPAA, along with our partners in the
business, civil rights and disability community have and will continue
to work to prevent efforts to water down expectations, avoid full
transparency, diminish the importance of honest measures of the
academic progress of all children in school accountability systems, or
delay interventions when any group of students is struggling
academically.
Unfortunately, past history shows that States often set
expectations for schools far too low which leads directly to low
student achievement impacting our most disadvantaged students. States
have set graduation goals as low as 60 percent, allowed as little as .1
percent of annual growth to count as progress against State goals and
set reading and math proficiency standards so low that high school
graduates, deemed eligible for the State's regular diploma required
remediation upon entering college. Recently, we've also seen how easily
States can allow the focus of accountability to shift away from student
learning. This is unacceptable.
We advocate for ED to exercise its full legal authority to
promulgate regulations that assure State title I plans must, in
summary, provide:
a. rigorous and consistent standards inclusive of all student
groups;
b. school differentiation or ratings that primarily reflect how all
students are doing with prohibition on the use of aggregated subgroup
data (e.g. super subgroups);
c. strict State limit of 1 percent of all students, by subject, in
the use of alternate assessments on alternate academic achievement
standards for students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities, with flexibility only at the district level and the
application of strict criteria for any State waiver;
d. valid and reliable assessment of English language proficiency
and the inclusion of English learners in content assessments, with
appropriate accommodations;
e. clear requirements for identification, intervention and exit
criteria for schools in each of the three categories identified in the
law--the bottom 5 percent, schools with grad rates below 67 percent and
schools with consistently low performing groups of students and assure
State and district-led evidence-based intervention systems focused on
raising achievement are initiated whenever any school is
underperforming for all students or for any student group so that
students don't languish year after year without help;
f. definitions and/or parameters set for new statutory terms--
specifically for new terms: ``meaningful differentiation,''
``substantial weight'' and ``much greater weight'';
g. specifications that the 95 percent participation requirement is
included in the accountability system so the performance of students
matters, provide Federal guidance on options for doing so and define
consequences for failure to meet the requirement;
h. recommendations for an acceptable range for statistically
significant N sizes to measure subgroup performance so that as many
students are included in school, district and State accountability
metrics as possible;
i. assurances for support to districts to reduce bullying,
harassment, use of disciplinary practices (e.g. suspension and
expulsion) and use of aversives (e.g. seclusion and restraint), all of
which disproportionately impact students with disabilities and students
of color;
j. universal access in all data reporting; cross-tabulate data and
expand on the availability of data disaggregated by Asian American and
Pacific Islander categories; and,
k. clarity that supplement, not supplant provisions presume and
ensure an equal base of actual per-pupil funding before any Federal
funds are considered supplemental.
The test of regulations, guidance, technical assistance and other
implementation activities must be whether or not they advance
educational equity and serve the interests of all students. Low-income
students, students of color, students with disabilities, English
learners, and Native students deserve no less than robust and thorough
regulation by this Department to close opportunity and achievement
gaps. Throughout regulations, the Department should reinforce the non-
discrimination responsibility of schools, districts and States under
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
As noted, the ESEA is our Nation's most important civil rights law
for promoting educational achievement and protecting the rights and
interests of students disadvantaged by discrimination, poverty,
disability, race, language and other conditions that may limit their
educational opportunity. With its reauthorization, the responsibility
continues to rest with the U.S. Department of Education to provide
comprehensive, detailed and clarifying rules to ensure that States and
school districts implement the new law in a way that not only honors
the purpose of the law but also holds States accountable for access
over $15 Billion in Federal funds. Despite claims to the contrary,
Federal funds are still conditional thorough compliance with the law.
ESSA is a new law that includes new flexibility as well as
requirements--the bright-line provisions the civil rights community
helped support--and the Secretary has the authority to define, monitor,
and enforce the law.
senator whitehouse
Question 1. ESSA is a relief to many, especially in Rhode Island.
Everyone who I've talked to is very excited about this bipartisan bill
and the opportunities it presents.
I am concerned about the supplement, not supplant issue. Many of
you have said that ED's proposed regulations on ``supplement, not
supplant'' are an overreach. But I am also aware of many inequities
that exist in local and State funding for education.
Absolutely no one wants to see Federal money come in and provide an
excuse to send other funding into wealthier, well-connected school
districts and have title I fill the gap.
I've heard from many about the problems with ED's draft proposal.
My question is not what are the problems, but what should ED do
instead? That is, what would you affirmatively propose to ensure that
title I funds are supplemental and not supplanting State and local
funds?
Answer 1. Regulations are the first step. And, as you acknowledge,
unless title I schools are receiving an equitable base of funds from
non-Federal sources to ensure that the Federal funds are truly
supplemental, then title I funds are being used to supplant by filling
in gaps of funds the schools should be receiving. This is a violation
of the law.
COPAA supports the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
position and has advocated that:
``. . . a comparison of spending between each title I and the
average of non-title I schools allows for considerable
variability among both title I and non-title I schools in State
and local expenditures, therefore not running afoul of the
law's prohibition against requiring the equalization of
spending.''
Compliance with an ``actual expenditures test'' also
recognizes the reality that equitable means fair, not equal--
underscoring the law's aim to ensure that students impacted by
concentrated poverty have the unique supports and services that
will address their needs. This also preserves flexibility for
districts to use weighted student funding, formulas for
staffing and materials, or any other methodology for allocating
State and local funds to schools. The integrity of title I
funds must be preserved to fully realize the aim of ensuring
equity and equal access to quality educational opportunities.
Question 2. Under NCLB and the Obama administration's waivers, I
consistently heard from Rhode Island teachers and principals that they
could achieve better results if not for the layers of bureaucracy
stifling innovation at multiple levels.
I am very pleased that ESSA is a step away from that one-size-fits-
all, overly prescriptive posture. You have all heard me talk about the
provisions I fought for in ESSA--requiring States to describe how they
will encourage opportunities for increased autonomy and flexibility.
I am concerned because I do not want to see ED use the regulatory
process to grab back the control that ESSA intended to push down to the
State and local level. What could ED do on the supplement, not supplant
issue that would support greater innovation at the local level?
Answer 2. Regulations should require an ``actual expenditures
test'' because it also recognizes the reality that equitable means
fair, not equal--underscoring the law's aim to ensure that students
impacted by concentrated poverty have the unique supports and services
that will address their needs. This also preserves flexibility for
districts to use weighted student funding, formulas for staffing and
materials, or any other methodology for allocating State and local
funds to schools. The integrity of title I funds must be preserved to
fully realize the aim of ensuring equity and equal access to quality
educational opportunities.
Response by Janet Murguia, J.D., to Questions of Senator Collins,
Senator Sanders, and Senator Whitehouse
senator collins
Question. During Secretary King's confirmation hearing, I asked for
his assurance that the Department would engage rural communities in its
ESSA implementation processes. For example, I was alarmed that the
Department held its initial public listening sessions in DC and Los
Angeles. Rural districts also seem to have been underrepresented on the
committee of negotiators selected for the negotiated rulemaking.
It's vital that rural communities and rural educators have a seat
at the table. What should the Department be doing to ensure rural
communities are represented in its rulemaking?
In your States, what are you doing, as stakeholders, to ensure
rural voices are heard in your State and local planning efforts?
Answer. As I stated in my testimony, ESEA was enacted in 1965 to
ensure all children, regardless of where they grow up, receive a high-
quality education. NCLR relies on our diverse Affiliate network--
serving urban and rural communities--to create a multi-stakeholder
strategy to ensure the implementation of this law addresses the broad
and diverse concerns of the students in our schools, including those of
native students. We also recognize that this task is not always easy,
particularly in remote and hard-to-reach areas. We have seen as Latino
communities have expanded in the Southeastern United States, that
service providers must be on hand to help these communities advocate at
all levels of government.
senator sanders
Question 1. We must do everything that we can to ensure that every
child--regardless of her or his circumstances--has access to a high-
quality education. We know that a high-quality education is a resource-
intensive endeavor. We also know that disadvantaged children need
additional resources to combat the ravages of poverty and
discrimination. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of
1965 marked the beginning of a strong role for the Federal Government
in combating inequities on both fronts. Clearly, there is much more
work that must be done.
A key component of the Federal Government's role in education is
ensuring that our schools have the additional resources needed to
ensure that every child can reach her or his full potential. Today,
over half of all public school children come from low-income families.
Examining the most recent data available, there is clearly an increased
need, as well as a lack of sufficient Federal resources to meet this
need (figure 1). Between school year 2004-5 and school year 2013-14 we
have seen a 32 percent increase in children eligible for free or
reduced lunch--an increase of over 6 million children.
Yet the main source of Federal funding for public schools serving
low-income children--Title I-A of ESEA--has not only not failed to keep
pace with the reality that our public schools are serving more low-
income children than a decade ago, funding has not even kept up with
inflation. Real title I-A funding is down 6 percent since fiscal year
2005 while the percentage of low-income kids in public schools has
increased by 32 percent over the same time period. If at a bare minimum
title-I-A funding had kept pace with inflation since fiscal year 2005,
appropriations for title-I-A would have been $15.2 billion in fiscal
year 2014 instead of $14.4 billion--a difference of nearly a billion
dollars. Furthermore, if title I-A funding had kept pace with both
inflation and the growing number of children coming from low-income
families since fiscal year 2005, title-I-A funding would have hit $20.2
billion in fiscal year 2014, a gap of over $5.5 billion when
considering reality versus actual funding (figure 2).
Ms. Murguia, can you please speak to the importance of Federal
education funding meeting the increased needs of our public schools?
Beyond a dramatic increase to title-I-A funding, what other funding
streams within ESEA and in other Federal programs require an increase
to meet the realities of today's public schools?
Answer 1. At its core, ESEA was enacted in 1965 as a civil rights
law to correct resource inequities in low-income communities and
communities of color. ESEA's original intent recognized that a high-
quality education was fundamentally linked to adequate resources. Yet,
50 years later, resource inequities and gaps in student achievement
remain. As a result, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) must
increase funding and other support for low-income children and students
of color to ensure the law's promise for all students. In particular,
lawmakers should increase funding for title I-A, title III, and title
IV.
In addition to increased appropriations, the Department of
Education must move forward with a robust rulemaking on resource-
related regulations on supplementing funds. As highlighted in my
written testimony, a recent analysis by the Education Trust showed that
across the Nation, the highest-poverty districts receive nearly $1,200
(10 percent) less in State and local funds per student than the lowest-
poverty districts.\1\ The differences are even larger--nearly $2,000
(15 percent)--when comparing districts with the highest and lowest
populations of students of color.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Natasha Ushomirsky and David Williams, ``Funding Gaps 2015: Too
Many States Still Spend Less on Educating Students Who Need the Most,''
The Education Trust, 2015, http://edtrust.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/
09/FundingGaps2015_TheEducationTrust1.pdf.
\2\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is also clear that resources are closely correlated with
educational attainment. Title III funding for English learners averaged
roughly $162 \3\ in per-pupil expenditures in 2014 and $164 \4\ in
2015. The recent 2013-2014 Civil Rights Data Collection showed that
while English learners are 11 percent of students in schools offering
gifted and talented education programs (GATE), only 3 percent of GATE
students are English learners. These students are more likely to be
retained in high school, along with students of color and students with
disabilities.\5\ Unequal and inadequate educational resources for
students of color and English learners undermine the goals of our
foundational civil rights and K-12 law. It is imperative that Federal
education funding equitably serve students regardless of race, ZIP
code, income, or national origin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ NCLR calculation using U.S. Department of Education, ``Digest
of Education Statistics 2014,'' Table 204.20, https://nces.ed.gov/
programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_204.20.asp?current=yes (accessed June
9, 2016) and U.S. Department of Education, ``Fiscal Year 2015 Budget
Summary and Background Information,'' www2.ed.gov/about/overview/
budget/budget15/summary/15summary.pdf.
\4\ Ibid.
\5\ U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights. ``2013-
2014 Civil Right Data Collection,'' U.S. Department of Education, 2016
(accessed June 8, 2016).
Question 2. It is abundantly clear that low-income and
disadvantaged children need additional support in order to succeed.
That is why, title-I-A education funding is supposed to be in addition
to and not in-lieu of local and State education funding. Since 1970,
Congress has included supplement, not supplant (SNS) provisions in ESEA
to codify this fundamental principle.
As you know, the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee for Title I, Part
A of ESEA as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act was unable to
meet consensus on SNS regulations. It is now up to the U.S. Department
of Education to draft regulations on SNS that ensure that Federal
funding is on top of State and local funding and not used as backfill
to compensate for unfair State and local spending practices on
education.
Ms. Murguia, can you speak to the importance of the Department of
Education crafting strong regulations for SNS? Ms. Murguia, what would
a strong SNS regulation mean for children of color including Latino
girls and boys who represent a majority of the children in our public
schools, and what would it mean for English Language Learners? Finally,
what progress can be made for all students if title-I-A funding is
truly supplemental?
Answer 2. As I highlighted in my testimony, our Federal education
system works best when policies are designed to be responsive to the
communities they serve. Our school funding system is simply not
adequate to support low-income students and students of color; they are
not afforded the same resources as their wealthier counterparts--a
paradox given ESEA's original intent. The SNS provision is designed to
ensure that Federal funds are supplemental to local and State funding
rather than in lieu of this funding. My testimony points to research
from the Education Trust that shows low-income students are being
short-changed and this has real academic consequences. A strong SNS
regulation will promote greater resource equity by requiring that title
I schools receive just as much funding for students as non-title I
schools. If title I funding were to be truly supplemental, students in
high-poverty schools would receive the additional support they need to
succeed in a competitive 21st-century workplace.
Question 3. I am very concerned that our schools and communities
are dealing with a surge of students exposed to multiple adverse
experiences and are not equipped with the resources, training, and
support to accommodate this crisis.
According to the national Adverse Childhood Experience Study, over
half of those surveyed reported at least one form of childhood
adversity. Shockingly, two in three children in our Nation--46 million
children--are exposed to violence, crime, abuse, or psychological
trauma a year. In Vermont, over 20 percent of children have had two or
more adverse experiences, which include traumatic events like living in
chronic poverty, living with someone with a substance abuse problem,
experiencing community or family violence, and more. Even more alarming
is the fact that our youngest citizens and their parents are at the
forefront of this crisis. Since 2014, the Department for Children and
Families in Vermont has seen a 33 percent increase of children in State
custody with children under the age of six making up more than two-
thirds of this increase. Further, similar to nationwide trends, over 40
percent of children come from low-income families in my home State,
with young children the most likely of any age group to be poor.
Ms. Murguia, what can the Department of Education do to help
schools, educators, and communities be prepared to deliver trauma-
informed approaches to education when implementing the Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESSA)? Additionally, what can the Department of Education
do to ensure that educators teaching in environments where a large
percentage of students have had adverse childhood experiences (ACEs)
have the support and the self-care they need to succeed? Furthermore,
what policies should Congress enact to help communities combat these
challenges and attack the root causes--like poverty, exposure to
violence and substance abuse--driving these adverse experiences? How
would increased Federal investments in child care, preschool, maternal
and child home visiting, before-school, afterschool, and summer
programming, nutritional supports, wrap-around services for schools and
more help to fight this crisis? Likewise, how would raising the Federal
minimum wage, addressing under-employment and unemployment,
implementing paid family leave, and enacting universal health care
coverage help attack the root causes of these adverse experiences?
As national education leaders, what plans are your organizations
making to work with States to ensure that their schools and
practitioners have trauma-informed approaches to education? How will
you make States and school districts aware of opportunities under ESSA
to create trauma-informed environments?
Answer 3. As the Department of Education moves forward with the
implementation of ESSA, it must consider ACEs through trauma-informed
practices. NCLR has over 250 Affiliates across the country on the
forefront of providing services that assure safe, stable, nurturing
relationships and environments for children with adverse childhood
experiences. This is all too common in immigrant communities: family
separation caused by immigration enforcement and experiences with
violence in Central America leave long-term impressions on young
people. Research supports what our Affiliates see frequently; a recent
study by Child Trends found ACEs have negative lasting effects on
health and well-being for students. The same study found that economic
hardship is the most common ACE nationally, a troubling finding for
low-income students nationwide.\6\ In response, States and districts
should learn from community-based organizations and examine ways to
incorporate wraparound services to support low-income and other
vulnerable students. In addition, Federal policymakers should examine
solutions to the root causes of ACEs, such as addressing poverty by
raising the minimum wage, enhancing the social safety net, creating
opportunities for economic mobility, and fixing our immigration system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Vanessa Sacks, David Murphey, and Kristin Moore. ``Adverse
Childhood Experiences: National and State-Level Prevalence,'' July
2014, http://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Brief-
adverse-childhood-experiences_FINAL.pdf.
Question 4. Yesterday, on the 62d anniversary of the Brown v. Board
decision, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report
confirming what educators, families, students, and community
stakeholders have been telling us anecdotally for some time--our public
schools are becoming more segregated by both race and family income.
The number of schools that are doubly segregated by both race and
income--where 75 percent or more of the kids at these schools come from
low-income families and are black or Hispanic--has increased from 9
percent of all public schools in school year 2000-2001 to 16 percent of
all public schools in school year 2013-14. Additionally, today, nearly
one in five public students attend these doubly segregated public
schools--more than double the amount of kids who attended these schools
almost 15 years ago. Furthermore, Hispanic children are often triply
segregated by race, family income, and native language. Shamefully,
nearly two-thirds--61 percent--of all high-poverty schools are schools
where over 75 percent or more of the children are black and Hispanic.
Segregation and isolation by race and income in our public school
is an alarming phenomenon on its own. Even more troubling is that the
fact that these doubly segregated schools are not offering students a
comparable education to non-segregated schools and schools at the other
end of the spectrum that are wealthy and predominately white. The GAO
report uncovers that these doubly segregated schools have fewer
resources, do not offer the full range of core courses like math and
science, offer less advanced coursework, and have disproportionately
more disciplinary actions than other public schools.
I'd like to ask this entire panel--what can the Federal Government
do to reverse this troubling trend of segregation by race and income,
and ensure an equal and adequate education for all children? Please
feel free to expound on reforms within education and greater system
wide changes including housing, transportation, jobs, and more.
Additionally, through the implementation of the Every Student Succeeds
Act (ESSA) what can the Department of Education do to make States and
school districts aware of opportunities within this new law to increase
racial and socioeconomic diversity in our schools?
Relatedly, Ms. Eskelsen Garcia, Ms. Marshall, Ms. Murguia, and Ms.
Weingarten, ESSA provides States and local school districts more
autonomy to make key educational decisions. What are your
organizations' plans to make States and local school districts aware of
opportunities to increase diversity under this new law? Additionally,
what other tools or resources do States and communities need to tackle
the difficult task of diversify our schools are providing equal and
adequate education for all students?
Answer 4. Thank you for your excellent question and remarks on the
multiple levels of segregation facing low-income students and students
of color in our schools today. Currently, one in every four children in
schools across the country is Latino. The recent report by GAO you
mentioned makes clear that segregation has increased over the past
decade for low-income students in high-poverty schools. Addressing this
issue will necessarily require a multi-stakeholder, cross-agency
strategy to examine systemic inequities our students face every day.
Through this type of collaboration, stakeholders can identify barriers
to socioeconomic mobility and integration, and work to provide tools
and best practices to communities to promote equal access to
opportunities.
Furthermore, it is critical to use the new requirements under ESSA
to make sure community voices are involved in the implementation of the
law. NCLR has over 250 Affiliates across the country, including a
network of charter schools, after-school services, and early education
providers who are ready and eager to provide guidance and technical
assistance to States and districts on ESSA's implementation. Through
partnerships with local nonprofit organizations, NCLR at the national
level can share best practices and help communities understand their
power in increasing diversity in schools and their communities. All
understand that Latino success in schools is paramount for their
communities and the Nation, and as such must strive to end segregation
once and for all.
senator whitehouse
Question 1. ESSA is a relief to many, especially in Rhode Island.
Everyone who I've talked to is very excited about this bipartisan bill
and the opportunities it presents.
I am concerned about the supplement, not supplant issue. Many of
you have said that ED's proposed regulations on ``supplement, not
supplant'' are an overreach. But I am also aware of many inequities
that exist in local and State funding for education.
Absolutely no one wants to see Federal money come in and provide an
excuse to send other funding into wealthier, well-connected school
districts and have title I fill the gap.
I've heard from many about the problems with ED's draft proposal.
My question is not what are the problems, but what should ED do
instead? That is, what would you affirmatively propose to ensure that
title I funds are supplemental and not supplanting State and local
funds?
Answer 1. As I stated in my testimony, ESSA grants the Department
of Education the authority to promulgate strong regulations on fiscal
equity, including the supplement, not supplant provision. The
Department must use this authority. Districts need to demonstrate that
they spend just as much in title I schools as they spend in non-title I
schools. Based on a recent analysis by the Education Trust, we know
that funding is not equitable and this has consequences for low-income
students and students of color. High-poverty schools receive nearly
$1,000 less in local funds than schools in wealthier districts.
Furthermore, districts that serve students of color receive nearly
$2,000 less in local funds than their less diverse counterparts.\7\ It
is paramount that the Department ensures each title I school is
receiving comparable services as a non-title I school. ESSA strikes an
important balance, however, with its update to supplement, not
supplant: allowing States and districts flexibility to innovate within
parameters set by the Federal Government. While the States have been
given some latitude to innovate, the Federal Government must still play
a role in setting guardrails to make sure all students are meeting
challenging academic goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Natasha Ushomirsky and David Williams, ``Funding Gaps 2015: Too
Many States Still Spend Less on Educating Students Who Need the Most,''
The Education Trust, 2015, http://edtrust.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/
09/FundingGaps2015_TheEducationTrust1.pdf.
Question 2. Under NCLB and the Obama administration's waivers, I
consistently heard from Rhode Island teachers and principals that they
could achieve better results if not for the layers of bureaucracy
stifling innovation at multiple levels.
I am very pleased that ESSA is a step away from that one-size-fits-
all, overly prescriptive posture. You have all heard me talk about the
provisions I fought for in ESSA--requiring States to describe how they
will encourage opportunities for increased autonomy and flexibility.
I am concerned because I do not want to see ED use the regulatory
process to grab back the control that ESSA intended to push down to the
State and local level. What could ED do on the supplement, not supplant
issue that would support greater innovation at the local level?
Answer 2. Education has been lauded as a pathway to the American
Dream, particularly for low-income students and students of color. As I
noted previously, we are not seeing these results in the data.
Furthermore, the Civil Rights Data Collection's latest report shows a
pattern of unequal access to educational resources for students of
color and English learners:
English learners represent 5 percent of high school
students, but only 2 percent of Advanced Placement course
enrollment.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights. 2013-2014
Civil Right Data Collection. Washington: U.S. Department of Education.
2016. Accessed June 8, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latino students represent 21 percent of high school
enrollments, but only 12 percent of students enrolled in calculus.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Black and Latino students are 1.5 times more likely to be
taught by novice teachers compared to schools with lower Black and
Latino enrollments.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The supplement, not supplant regulation grants States adequate
flexibility to pilot new and innovative programs or scale effective
programs. It also provides guardrails to ensure low-income students,
students of color, and English learners have the resources they need
for academic success. Opportunities should not be defined by race,
ethnicity, national origin, or ZIP code. We can and must do more for
these students.
[Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]