tv Education Secretary John King Testimony on the Every Student Succeeds Act CSPAN April 12, 2016 10:00am-12:31pm EDT
past. your thoughts on reducing moneys influence in politics. caller: i think they should make the national election in national holiday. -- a national holiday. they will be paid for that day, but if they don't vote, they won't be paid. more people will participate in the process? caller: i am for bernie sanders -- i am sorry. i am a little nervous. that is what he is trying to do, trying to get people to vote, whether they are republican or democrat or independent. i think it will push people to vote. host: walter, still waiting.
i apologize, did not see you there. go ahead. is, we do suggestion everything. congressmen, running for offices, only can run for one month. one month. that way we can get rid of all of this month. all of this money. all of this money. senators, everybody, should be able to run for just one month out of the whole year. we get everything we need to know about them in one month. then we need to do one other thing. all donated money should come from us. we should have it so that one a year,, -- once everyone in the united states
donate one dollar or two dollars. and that is it. that is all they get. host: last caller. i appreciate the call today. will take our viewers to the senate health committee where education secretary john king is set to testify about the everyentation of the student succeeds act, which has been signed into law as a replacement to no child left behind. that is up now it we will see you back here tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. eastern. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016]
>> senators will have five minutes. >> you know i urged the senate to support a secretary because it was important to have a secretary accountable to the united states senate when the department was implementing the new law fixing no child left behind. have sworn to discharge your duties faithfully. that is your oath of office and you said you would abide by the letter of the law. this hearing is about whether your employees are doing that or not.
i do not think i need to rehearse the fact that this will test by huge margins, 359-64 and . house the president signed it and called it a christmas miracle. the reason we were able to consensusch unusual is, to put it bluntly, that local school boards, classroom teachers, and states have gotten tired of the united states department of education telling them so much about what to do. it was not just republicans or governors complaining. when itn hear that comes to those closest to the children. this came from the school superintendent, the national education association and the american confederation of , almost everybody involved in education. there has not been a broader coalition in a long time. the department had become a , tellingschool board kansas what its academic
standards had to be an telling tennessee how to fix failing schools and how to evaluate teachers. gotlegislation that only rid of those things. we went further in a remarkable way and had explicit on what a future secretary might do. it is a dramatic change call the biggest evolution of responsibility from the federal government to states in 25 years. permitted properly. this is the second in what be at least six hearings on the oversight of the implementation of the new law. we are seeing disturbing evidence that the department of edation is ignoring the law. it was not easy to pass the law. there were crocodiles lurking in the pond. one of those, because we have had bigger discussions, it was called the issue of comparability. that is a provision put into the
law first in 1970 and it says school districts have to provide at least comparable services to state and local funding to title i schools in non-title i schools. also said school districts shall not include teacher pay when they have spending for the purposes of comparability. debated several times whether or not it would be disclosed -- excluded. it.ad a proposal to change it was not adopted. i offered an amendment to change it and it was defeated. made twoy, we decisions about the issue as reflected in the law we passed. not to change the comparability language and the law. the law still says it may not be included in that. second, we added a reporting requirement. the school district should
support the amount we spend, including teacher sally -- salaries, so parents and teachers can know what is being spent and make their own decision about what is fair and equitable, rather than the federal government mandating. the one thing the law the president signed in december did not do was change the law that says salaries may not be are computingyou comparability. here is what your department did on april 1. you tried to do what congress did not do last year and you try to do it by regulating another separate provision in the law, in a proposed will making session, here is what you proposed. forcing districts to include teacher's salary and how they measure their state or spending. and to require that state and local spending in title i schools be at least local to the average and nontitle schools. if that were adopted, your proposal would require an
of all andoverhaul the country, something we did not pass in the law. it would force teachers to transfer into new schools, something we did not transfer into law. it would require states and school districts to move back the practice of detailing every individual cost when the purpose of the law is to relieve some of that burden. council, yourhe proposed rule would cost $3.9 billion just for the school district. districted the school spending in the school. i'm not interested in debating whether or not it is a good idea to include teacher salad -- teacher salaries. the plain fact is the law specifically says the department on his own cannot do it. not only is what you are doing against a loss, but the way you are trying to do it is against another provision in the law. onaccomplish your goals
comparability, you using the supplement plan provision that is supposed to keep school districts from using federal title i dollars as a replace -- a replacement for low income schools. according to a political story, the former secretary of education said, candidly, our lawyers are much smarter than many of the folks who are working on the bill. that meansow whether the 22 senators on the committee or all of the staff sitting behind him. smart wenot sure how are but we are smart enough to write a law in plain english and to anticipate that your lawyers would attempt to ignore what we wrote and try to move around it. so we included specific prohibitions in the so-called supplement provision that would prohibit you from doing the very things your posing to do. 118b4 says before --
nothing in this section shall authorize the secretary to prescribe the specific methodology the local education agency uses to allocate local funds. sexton -- section 1605 said nothing in this title shall be construed to mandate equalized spending. i will have more to say about will ask you about it, but i want you to know and those lawyers who think none of us are very smart appear, i wanted to know that i am smart enough and i believe there are every power we have to make sure the law is implemented the way we wrote it, including our ability to overturn such rules when they became final. including using the appropriations. if you try to force states to follow regulations that ignore the law, that -- i will encourage them to request a hearing. if they lose, i will encourage
them to go to court. i'm not the only one to read the law or you will go up against a coalition as broad as anything we've ever had in education. chief state school officers tired of your department telling them so much about what to do about the 50 million children in the 100,000 public schools. they already sent you a letter about that. the wisconsin superintendent is officerespected school congressional intent is not necessarily being followed here. the prohibitions in the law in tandem with congress deliberately in the act of leaving it unchanged, makes a tight case against expanding supplement. you have testified here that you will abide by the letter of the law. it is not abiding by the letter of the law to require a local school district to use teacher salaries and equalized spending between title i and non-title i
schools. it is not abiding by the letter of the law to use plan provisions to achieve your goals for comparability when congress debated the issue and chose not to make any changes in the law. i make in such a point of this today because we are at the beginning of an implication -- implementation of a law that affects 3.4 million teachers and 50 million students and 100,000 public schools. states are busy working on her plans for title i money. clear law that changes the direction of what federal policy is. i am determined to see it implemented the way we wrote it. at the beginning of the implementation, to make sure that all of you who work for this department understand that. you are confirmed by the united states senate execute the laws and you said you would abide by the letter of the law in your confirmation proceeding. i expect that to be the case. senator murray.
sen. murray: thank you. this is an important time, from expanding access in pre-k for our youngest learners, to helping students and families with growing college costs. as you are working hard to implement the new law. i remember hearing from a parent last year. and he is at school ,n active member of the pta students from very diverse backgrounds. he says he saw up close and personal how no child left behind was not working for teachers and students in the classroom and not for schools or our communities. as important as education and a law as broken as no child left behind, we were able to work together and break through the gridlock and pass the other -- every student succeeds act. with strong bipartisan support. here is what the law does.
the every student succeeds act gives states more flexibly but includes strong federal designils as a state their accountability system. it apartments rule to implement and support the law and it reduces requirements on state testing and makes investments to improve and expand access to preschool for the nation's .oungest learners reauthorizing the law was not the finish line. it was a starting point for the department and our school district and states to begin the hard work of transitioning away from no child left behind and turn the page. the department goes through the process and the state develops new policies, i will closely monitor several issues to make sure our law lives of to the intent to with a all students high-quality education. the elementary and secondary education act is at its heart a
civil rights law. strong that without accountability, kids from low income neighborhoods and students of color and kids with disabilities and students learning english too often fall through the >>. usepect the department to the authority to make sure every student has access to quality education. while we were writing the law, we were deliberate on granting the department authority to hold schools and states accountable includes thatthat districts take action every year to improve student achievement for students not achieving academically. the use of simplified alternate assessment with cognitive disabilities and ensuring education programs. school- teams have a that's the tools they need --
teams have the tools they need. for school interventions and support that will be critical to helping improve. 54 civil rights organizations sent a letter to the department on the importance of accountability and the authority of the department to regulate on this and other critical issues. i want to underscore what they to make sure the law includes serious protections for students and create important leverage for parents, communities, and advocates to continue their push for equity and accountability for all students. authorityment has the and responsibility to issue regulation and provide guidance and technical assistance for the implementation of every student succeeds act. very focused on the competitive grant program.
that means the department of health and human services should the departmentth of education so more students get the chance to start kindergarten ready to learn. it is up to all of us to uphold the legacy and the promise of the every student succeeds act and i look forward to hearing from you on the steps needed to implement the new bipartisan law in a way that will help provide quality education to all of our children. thank you. >> i would like to thank him for being here p or he has a busy schedule. i am pleased to introduce dr. john king junior, confirmed march 14. he served as commissioner of education for the state of new york, overseeing on only the states elementary and secondary schools, but higher education and numerous other educational institutions. he served as a managing director .or managing organization
for curriculum and massachusetts charter school. welcome. much.ing: thank you so chairman alexander, and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to speak about how the department of education intent to implement the every student succeeds act. i commend congress for passing the law with strong bipartisan support. the passage of the law is a major a compliment as we build on efforts to expand excellence and equity with district communities. it presents us with a moment of opportunity and moral responsibility. authorizes the act of 1965, which was a civil rights law and must review in the context of the civil rights act of 1964. responsibility to ensure the implementation of a new law with heritage, and with all of us.
it advances equities by withholding critical protections and maintaining dedicated resources for america's most disadvantaged students. the law maintains expectations and action will be taken to improve opportunities to our students and schools that chronically underperform, they do not improve low graduation rates and do not ensure progress for all student groups. the new law also embodies much what the obama administration has supported over the last seven years. chosen learning standards that will prepare all students for college and careers. the law supports local innovation and bills on the administration passes historic investment in quality preschool. it also requires information on student progress is shared. annual statewide assessments while supporting statewide efforts to improve state and local tests. alreadys on work underway for expectations and
for school improvement for the state. the law rightly shifts responsibility for developing strategy to support the highest meetings could -- students and schools and decision-makers. creates opportunity for states to claim a goal of a rigorous and well rounded education for every child. at the same time, it maintains the role protect civil rights and we take that responsibility seriously. is an important law related to accountability. at the federal level, our role to improve opportunities for students, invest in research and seeing what works, and showing transparency, implementing state guards to ensure equity. ultimately, we all want quality and limitation of the law that build on the progress of the last decade and support state districts and schools in helping
every student succeed. implementation will require an incredible amount fork. to know how to best implement educators, we look at areas needing guidance and technical assistance and we receive a lot of feedback via the notice in the register, public meetings, and outreach to stakeholders. the department is engaging in the process with an andrstanding that we cannot should not attempt to provide guidance and regulation to every area of law where ambiguity exists or we are prioritizing and supports implementation is most needed. plan to issue guidance in the late summer and early fall on the changes that impact our most vulnerable students. students in foster care in english learners and to encourage us practices, make use of the new funding opportunities in the law. recently, the department engages on rulemaking, and assessment on the requirement of
federal lawmaking funds to use the supplement and not to plan local investments in education. the department has proposed , including our students with disabilities in english learners, by ensuring annual statewide assessment are valid, reliable, fair, and of high technical quality so schools can provide information for parents and educators. the department also proposed regulatory tax that would help ensure that funds are supplemental while also maintaining flexibility to choose their own methodology to allocate state and local funds. it will be a set of regulations to protect equity and transparency. we recently announced we will begin the regulatory process on accountability and include stateents related to
plans commission and the new title i part d innovative assessment demonstration authority. on on which regulations would serve and support implementation. reduce burden on states, and encourage them to think comprehensively about systems and supports across programs. at the type of approach i would have found helpful when i was the state chief. guidance and technical assistance may be needed, we look forward to a robust discussion on the law. implementation is the path to quality and opportunity that is at the heart of the american dream. we can ensure the dream is in reach for every child. thank you. we will have a round of five-minute questions.
preliminarily, we are talking about title i plans, federal dollars, states may apply for submitting a plan, and the constitutive about 4% of all the money state and local governments spend on public schools. there is more federal money than that but it is not covered by title i. that andlking about second, i mission and guidance is coming later. you agree that guidances are illustrative and not intended to be legally binding. sec. king: that is right. guidance is intended to provide clarity and provide examples of best practice. we do not believe guidance has the force of law. it often includes our interpretation of the law again to provide clarity. sen. alexander: thank you. a provision in the act, as i 1970,ned, first put their
says school districts have to provide comparable services to title i schools. , foron comparability purposes of this subsection, in determining that competition, staff salary differentials for years of employment shall not be included in such determinations. you agree, yes or no, that the law print its requiring local school district to use teacher salaries when demonstrating that they are providing title i schools with at least comparable services as title -- non-title i schools. sec. king: you are referencing the comparability section and yes, i believe that is an accurate dictation of the comparability section of the law. sen. alexander: you have had a chance to study the law. did congress make any changes in the comparability section when we reauthorized the law last year? think there do not
were changes to the comparability section but there were changes to the supplement -- sen. alexander: i am just asking you, did we change section 11 8c2b? no, we did not. ok. your proposal in april, to the rulemaking committee, on a afferent subject, it says local school district may determine the methodology it will use to allocate local funds, provided that methodology spending of local funds in a way that is equal to or greater than the average amount spent for non-title i say, youand you also , they that methodology may create a methodology provided that the basic
educational program is defined under state and local law is used. that languagee defines two methods that local school districts must use? sec. king: no. i appreciate your making the distinction between supplement not supplanted. wait a minute. it says in the supplements to plant, it says, provided that that methodology that the the average i is talk about and the basic education program, how could the defining of a methodology the local school district uses? sec. king: careful to maintain district for civility -- sen. alexander: wait a minute. though words are, provided that methodology is one or two. the question is, are you not defining a methodology when you use the words provided that methodology is x or y?
sec. king: we are not we are laying out what criteria are necessary -- sen. alexander: you use the words, provided that methodology. followed by a set of or is that describe the criteria by which that methodology would meet -- sen. alexander: ok. so you define the methodology. sec. king: we do not. sen. alexander: you do. how can you set there and say that? we may not be very smart a p, where at least i may not be a beast be for myself it i can read. provided that methodology does x and y. methodologyning a when, in the law, what we put in the law was that nothing in this , which hassupplement nothing to do with the comparability section, nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize or permit the secretary to describe the specific methodology. a local education agency used, or to mandate equalized
spending. in other words, we anticipated that you were going to try to not follow the law and we anticipated and wrote into the law that you cannot use a specific prohibition to do that. sec. king: we do not describe the specific methodology p or we leave it to districts. sen. alexander: provided that .ethodology results in x criteria byhose are which to evaluate a methodology that would be determined by a district that would ensure that title i dollars are in fact supplemental and not being used -- sen. alexander: do you know how ridiculous a statement you just made? if i read you plain english and you say --how can that be? sec. king: i would characterize it differently. the question here is, a methodology that is determined must achieve a and b. define -- used in a
way that is supplemental. sen. alexander: that states would have more flexibility and local school district in showing, and i'm over my time and i've already violated my own rule, it looks like, so i will conclude and stay for a second round of questions. thank you. congressay: deliberately required to go through the negotiated rulemaking process. the policy really is a critical fiscal check to make sure federal funds are layered on top of and not in place of state and local funding. teachers and principals in washington state, how important federal education dollars are to support resources in their schools and we need to make sure the federal dollars continue to augment state and local dollars and do not replace. you tell us about the
feedback he received from stakeholders and how this was then incorporated in draft regulation? sec. king: your description is exactly right word as we gather feedback, we heard a request from civil rights groups, from parents, from educators, for on how it would ensure that the title i dollars are truly supplemental. we also heard concern that the prior methodology under no child left behind is often burdensome and left key decision-making to auditors rather than to educators. the new methodology reflects the input -- this new way of defining what districts need to do in their methodology reflects the input we receive. is at itsy: essa heart a civil rights law with the goal of ensuring all students receive a quality education.
they only required important interventions in the bottom 5% of schools and small groups of schools with achievement gaps. because of that, i heard many things that approach. states must annually distinguish and ensure there are interventions in any school in which one or more sub routes of students is consistently underperforming and require additional interventions for the worst performing of those schools. they will release the draft regulation in the coming months. can you tell me how the administration will make sure that faithful implementation of that -- that there are robust support for the schools in which subjects are struggling? sec. king: we have developed regulation on accountability with the goal that it reflects the principles him law, that stimulus -- standards will be high and we went sure in schools that are struggling, there is a requirement for meaningful action by states and districts.
regulations would ensure ensuring flexibility per state, for them to define the precise intervention that they believe will a dress the underperformed. -- address the underperformed. sen. murray: state's interest -- and districts making collaboration. -- including civil rights leaders and parents. steps are the departments making for frequent collaboration among all stakeholders -- stakeholders? that is the of -- sec. king: that is the approach from the outset, the comments from nearly 1000 individuals and organizations.
we held two public hearings. sessions,ld listening and we will continue to do so in the rulemaking process, 200 process, the diversity of and we urged states as they begin their process of developing state approaches to implementing, we encourage states to make sure they have robust stakeholder engagement and i think that is what we are seeing, states beginning the process of engaging with a diversity of interests within their state. sen. murray: your hearing back as you move forward on this? of the comments are on what areas require further clarity and guidance. areasdevelop identified
for negotiated rulemaking or regulation or for guidance, it has an responsive to the feedback we have received. we heard a lot of enthusiasm about the potential for the new law to advance excellence, but also a concern to make sure there are federal guardrails to protect civil rights. sen. murray: thank you very much. sen. alexander: senator. sen. burr: schools have had to itemize programs to show -- providing supplemental services. the schools do not have to identify the individual costs. the only have to show fiscal terms of title i dollars supplemental state and local dollars. they do not need a waiver to do so. districts no longer have to worry about showing whether each expenditure is a core service for supplement in title i
services. , negotiated rule proposal equal to or greater than in a non-title i receiving state. as you know, in a concept , i believe the states were told to do something equitably. the federal government must exhibit leadership and how we allocate title i a funds to eliminate those equities. this is the whole point of title i a. i asked to propose in the remaining months, would you share with me how you might
address equities in title i a? sec. king: we are prepared to work with your staff. theimportant distinction is proposal around supplement is not going to affect state-level decisions. it is about the methodology for allocation of resources. sen. burr: do you agree that federal funds that were designed for poor kids is not following the poor kids? i think what we see, and one of the reasons why the supplement regulation is so important, we see that in fact, many districts around the country, more dollars are being spent, more federal dollars are being spent, in non-title i schools. we have got to make sure the resources are allocated to address the needs -- sen. burr: is in the role of
federal government, with taxpayer designated money for poor kids, isn't it our role to make sure the money follows where those poor kids live? i think the focus of the federal dollars is on addressing the needs of the students most at risk. sen. burr: wouldn't title i design to supplement, it does not follow the kids. whether thetrict population grows or decreases. why wouldn't the federal government set the example of changing it? i think the key is to get the dollars to the students who are most at risk and we have to knowledge students in poverty are more at risk as a result. they'rehe things president has proposed in an initiative called stronger together, they have a goal -- sen. burr: we layer programs that we have got one here where the money does not followed the
intended pupil and we're not fixing it. january 28, 2016, your staff instructed states, they would receive or mila funds in accordance with the 2015 school year allocations. though the guidance appears to ily apply to title i funds, want to know whether you agree the fiscal year 2017, almost upon us in october, whether you agree with the 14 point -- 14.2 9% annual reduction entitled to hold harmless provisions will begin to take place as required iv every student succeeds act for the upcoming fiscal year? we will have to follow-up with your staff on the question. i have to make sure we are talking about an apples to apples comparison. sen. burr: let me refresh your
memory. there is a reduction of 14.29%. effect with fiscal year 2017, october 1 of this year. again, we will need to follow up with your team. times, title two dollars, there were times when a carryover from year-to-year, i just want to make sure we are having an apple to apple comparison. we will follow up with your team. forward to theok conversation because i do not think there is a gray area in how we wrote this when the title to formula change starts and that is october 1. i think the chair. casey: thank you for your service. i guess you are on the job for about a month and we appreciate you being here for the implementation. i want to focus your attention
on students with disabilities, and particularly the 1% cap on alternative assessment, on which is a technical issue, but i think it is easy for most folks to understand what we are trying to do. to make sure that as many students with disabilities stay on track and graduate with a regular diploma. it is as simple as that. we have made a lot of progress a number of years, scores going up for students with disabilities, graduation rates getting better, and being able to codify and put into law the 1% policy. it is good progress. some of the data you look at the math and reading scores forced to as with disabilities, they are up and i thought it may be even more significantly, students with
disabilities are increasingly completing high school and moving on to post secondary programs. in about a decade, we went from 68% of students with learning disabilities receiving a regular high school diploma, compared to sorry, 57% aam decade ago. 68% now, which is good progress on metric. also, the dropout rate, fortunately, over a decade, is going in the right direction. instead of a dropout rate of 35% in 2002, in 2011, the latest here, we have some data, down to 19. good progress. basically two questions. as you go through the implementation process, what can the department as well as states and districts do to ensure we continue to make progress? sec. king: one of the keys to
continued progress is ensuring that, to the greatest extent possible, students with disabilities have access to the general education curriculum. assessment requirement, the 1% cap on alternate assessment, is an important element in ensuring that students have access to the general education curriculum. as we work with negotiated rulemaking committee, one of the key elements in the discussion is ensuring 1% cap is meaningfully enforced and to the extent that states are able to get a waiver, it is not having the effect of taking the students who could six seed in the general idriss asian regular and denying them those opportunities. receivedhe feedback we was from the disability rights community expressing appreciation that there would be a requirement for states to be
very careful when including students from accessing the general education assessment. i guess the value here or the goal is to make sure every student that has the capability has the opportunity to both access the general curriculum and finally to graduate with a diploma. one more question on this. generally, and even if we had specific temples, what has the community been saying to you in this process? sec. king: i think like many other constituency groups, there is a sense of enthusiasm about the new law and the potential for the new flex ability, and a need to beat there good guard rails in place to ensure that resources reach the students most in need, to ensure that students with disabilities have access to the general education or kill him, that
students with disabilities have access to the full range of variances that constitute a well-rounded education, that students have access to science and social studies, that students with disabilities have coursework with appropriate accommodations. ensuring ourindful implementation helps states protect the rights of students with this abilities. sen. casey: i appreciate that and i think we have learned families and advocates have taught us that students with disabilities have a lot of ability to we just have got to give them the tools and resources to succeed. thank you for your work on this. sen. alexander: senator bennett. bennett: thank you for your on the bill. questionto ask you the
, understanding that, as you said, this is a civil rights law in there is the only reason education. i remember when i was superintendent of the public knows, the most miserable -- one of the most miserable experiences i had was the experience of federal bureaucrats and auditors who are not experts, deciding whether or not this service was provided, this service test service provided in the non-title i school. it may be a judgment that has nothing to do that had children, following not even the law, but the rules of the department of education to determine whether or not we were ourlementing or supplanting
federal money, in other words, whether we were using it incrementally or filling gaps here the reality is, unfounately, senator burr is right. we are one of three countries among all industrialized countries that spent more money and wealthy kids than we do on poor kids. that is not mostly a function of what we do. it is a function of the in equities exist in the property tax system we used to fund schools in america. even with respect to title i, a recent study said that 4.5 million students attending schools, title i schools, in the with non-title i schools, are actually having less money spent on their than more affluent kids. it makes no sense. it is exactly the opposite. i wonder if you could first talk about the existing framework, the existing experience, and pragmatic point
of view, of what you're trying to achieve with the proposed rule. sec. king: i agree completely about the challenges with the where you had auditors try to make a decision on whether some in was a new program or not, whether something, because a law might have been changed by the state, whether or not that then changed the analysis for determining whether the services were a matter of supplement or supplementation. all of that was quite burdensome and did not achieve the intended goal, to ensure that title i dollars would be supplemental. what we tried to do -- sen. bennett: it made it incredibly hard to do whole school reform because you would have an auditor coming in and saying, that reading program, you paid for that over here and you cannot use that over here. is right. that
with the discussion of all making committee is having, and i do not want to get ahead of that discussion, but we posed in those discussions a simple saying districts should choose their methodology, but that methodology should ensure that at least as much state and local spending is taking place in the title i schools as in the average non-title i school. the idea is to say we should try to assure thecan principle of supplement, that the title i dollars are not traditional. it does not require teacher transfers. what it requires is schools that are not spending as much state and local funds as title i schools, that districts in nearly rate that allocation, and they can do that in a variety of ways. sen. bennett: i want to agree with the chairman, that may be
-- maybe add to what he said, and entrenchment on education. this is probably the biggest retrenchment on a policy issue with had in modern american history. not just education but anything else. whatder in that context you plan for the department to do to help districts implement .he new law with fidelity i have come to believe over the years that bad implementation is even worse than bad policy and i wonder if you have thoughts on that. i have 10 seconds left. sec. king: our goal is to provide clear guardrails based on the input we have gotten from stakeholders to provide guidance, particularly on areas example ofty in that best practice would be helpful, ,ike students with foster care and to create communities of practice among states where they can share best practices with
each other. that honors flexibility while at the same time honoring the law. thank you.der: senator cassidy has suggested we go on to senator warren. warren: thank you. received a letter from civil rights organizations representing children of color, children, students with disabilities, lgbt young people and other vona both student populations, regarding your responsibilities in enforcing the new education law. organizations that represent exactly the kids who these laws are intended to help. they wrote, "given the long histories,state shortchanging loanable students, the department cannot shirk from
its responsibility and enforcement of regulatory and enforcement responsibilities to ensure that the abdomen tatian of essa --implementation of essa eliminates. " briefly, what is the department of education's role in ensuring the accountability safeguards in the new education law are actually enforced? that is, once a district announces it has satisfied the law, are you required to just back out of the room and do nothing more? we take seriously that our responsibilities is to set good clear guardrails and then to review and improve state plans and ensure those plans are implement it in a way that advances equity and excellence. sen. warren: thank you. the republicans have talked about the congressional intent in passing the new law and i think the question is not difficult to answer. the first version of the legislation in 1965 was to
affirm the federal role in protecting civil rights and educational opportunities for all students, especially our most vulnerable students. that has been the basis of federal aid to education from the very beginning. it is carried directly forward into the statute. law on the the explicit agreement that the department of education would enforce its accountability provisions through meaningful regulations. that is clear in the language of the law and i think it is also good policy. when the federal government gives the states billions of taxpayer dollars to improve education for our most vulnerable is, it is critical that the department of education ensure that those states actually use the money to accomplish those ends. ons is one of the conditions which many of house democrats voted for the law and the condition on which the president
of the united states signed the bill into law. public recordy about this and the ink is very dry and i trust you will keep it in mind as you go forward. and secondarytary education law directs billions of federal taxpayer dollars to states to provide all children significant opportunity to receive a fair, equitable, and high-quality education. to make sure that happens, congress wrote into the law critical requirements. this requirement says that funds must be used to supplement, not supplant, current state and local funds. in other words, federal dollars must provide additional replaces and not investments. we have been talking about this all along. can you talk for a minute about how the department is enforcing tos ink -- this provision ensure that federal education dollars are truly providing
additional resources to high poverty schools? the implementation under no child left behind was not affected -- not effective in achieving the goal. if you look at individual districts, you can see 25 percent, 30%, 40% in some cases an additional spending in non-title i schools. in fact, federal dollars were being used essentially to back. going forward, the new law presented an opportunity to create a regulation that requires districts to develop their own methodology that will ensure that at least as much is spent on state and local funds and title i schools as is spent in average non-title i schools. they are working through the process. on. warren: let me be clear this. is it possible for the toartment of education
require states and districts to work toward specific outcomes, rails, without mandating specific accounting methods to achieve those ends? when the federal government gives money, it is important that the department of education uses the money to help those kids. this was one of the conditions on which a lot of senators voted for this law, and it is something we are going to stick with. the democrats have spent years fighting to make sure that this reauthorization is about additional dollars to make sure they support all of our teachers and all of our kids to get a decent education. we want you to keep that in mind as you go forward. thank you. cassidy: i was listening to
your testimony, and the questions as i was in another hearing. so you mentioned i think that you are concerned about subgroups that would struggle and that you are looking for meaningful action required. i think you used the term precise intervention. you have been here before. you know what of my interests is dyslexia. is thishe population dyslexic. thety percent to 80% of texas inmate population is dyslexic. given you are interested in subgroups that are struggling and what action is required, i am interested in what we are doing specifically regarding dyslexia, and when i asked these
questions, i am giving these bromide answers. this gauze that we are looking at every child and are concerned about dyslexia. i want to know what we are doing for children with thi dyslexia? for this 20% of the population and those reading below grade level, what are we doing for that subgroups that is struggling? what precise intervention? currently states are address reading programs that are -- cassidy: i asked what different people, governors down, and asked what each was doing to screen for dyslexia at grade 1.
i did not get a positive answer for any of them. of a single entity we know is screening for a condition .hat affects 20% of children knowing that is what they are supposed to do, what meaningful action -- i am not seeing that precise intervention. mr. king: this is an area where technical assistance and element are critical. cassidy i do not mean to be a -- what is being written for technical assistance that is meaningful and precise regarding dyslexia to that local and state entity? mr. king: thanks to your leader leadership,he 20 -- there is funny for a center focused on dyslexia. we are developing the request for proposals for that center. center ofy: that is a
excellence, but that is putting out information if you use that. unless it is required to be used, it may be equivalent of shelf wear. mr. king: that is why to the point that senator warren made, the accountability provisions of this are so important. we got to make sure districts and dates take seriously -- mr. cassidy: those folks respond what you say. it,ou say it, that settles boom. i would go back to where i started -- what precisely and meaningfully is being sent by your department to instruct them to address the needs of that first grader who may be at risk for lifelong reading below grade level because they have undiagnosed dyslexia? mr. king: we've issued guidance and provided a tool kit last
year and talked about strategies that districts and states might employ. the technical assistance center will add to our capacity to support state and district. cassidy: is this a group of things that you think you should do? mr. king: it is options district s might choose. some districts might choose a variety of options. the response is regard that some of the options be used or is it if you decide to address, you may go down one of these paths? mr. king: ultimately what is chosen for any student is bound up with iep processes. this is a plate where support and professional development for the folks involved in those conversations is so critical. mr. cassidy: are there any requirements on your part that the district where the state
screen a first grader, because you can do take it in great one, for being at risk for dyslexia? mr. king: there is not a universal screening requirement. but the iep team would be expected to address the screening for the sexy as a part of the assessment of the needs of a student who is struggling. one of the challenges here is providing good support and development for folks. i think the technical assistance center will help, and our accountability approach will state realized it is just not paper compliance, but ensuring meaningful opportunity for students with the disability. i think unless you require this to be addressed specifically, dyslexia is one of the things we are looking at, are you intervening at grade one, or grade three that is too
late, it is not going to happen. that is the power of your department. murphy: thank you. welcome, mr. secretary. ask about my proposedding of this requirement regarding supplemental -- a supplants that senator alexander was discussing, because i understand when you think about the context of the new law be a devolution of power back to the states, and you read language through that points a school district in a specific direction on tell you howlet me i read them at consistent. this is a section that is talking about the way a school district will develop the methodology, but there is a difference and saying the
methodology will be where the whatdology must be versus the language says, which is the andodology must result in, essentially, what it must result in is a re-articulation of the underlying goal of the statute, which is that the federal supplements, not supplant. the key is the language does not say the methodology must the x and y. it says the methodology must result in essentially the goals of the underlying statute that we all read together. is that right? mr. king: that is exactly right. fundingct may take a approach as the methodology, or a more traditional assignment of staffing and services approach. both of those approaches would be fine as long as they achieve the goal of as much state and
local spending in the title i schools and the average non-title i schools. you expect to see different methodologies used. mr. king: that's right. about accountability regulations, and a lot us were involved in the construction of that. these guardrails are fairly wide --terms of what states states have to set a goal for performance of school and subgroups, have to check whether schools and subgroups are meeting those goals, and if not, they have to provide intervention. it is up to the schools as what their goals are and interventions are. pointe clearly would be a in which a school district is in violation of those requirements. i would suggest it is just me talking that if a school was failing and they just changed
the name of the school, that would not likely be an intervention that would comply with the statute. regulations are we helpeans by which school districts understand how to comply with a law that is relatively broad in its requirements as to how school districts go about building accountability systems. and so i just don't wanted you to speak -- i just wanted you to speak a moment on regulations that are done right, it is actually helpful to school districts they will not get surprised by an enforcement action on the back end, because you still retain not only authority, responsibility to enforce this law. -- in enforcement, you want to give districts on the accountability sessions where guardrails are wiped some idea at a time as to how they stay in compliance with the underlying law. mr. king: that is exactly right.
those are the principles that are behind art element of the accountability relations. you can imagine a high school struggling because they have a number of english learners who are performing poorly. there's flexibly for them to develop a tailored strategy that response to their need acquiring proficiency, that leverages their native language in a thoughtful way. at the end of the day, the districts and state have to ensure there is actual progress. if years go by and graduation rates do not improve, outcomes the districts, have to change the strategy to get that are outcomes. to ensures are a way there are clear guardrails for state they do that work. it is important to a member you retain the enforcement responsibility, and so if the department believes that a state or school district is not in compliance with the statute, it is up to you to
provide a remedy. thus, the regulations are not just a way that the federal government tells a state what to do. it is a way to give some states to utility for know when they might run afoul of the law. thank you very much, mr. chairman. house: secretary king, welcome. you not really there yet, but there will be -- this is a preview of coming attractions. i do not know if the supplement versus supplant conversation really takes us to it. bill, i workedn very hard on an innovation schools initiative. i worked hard in rhode island bringing together all the wererent players who usually in touch with their organizations to make sure they were not getting out of line,
teachers with principals, school departments, with reform groups, with everybody. and i worked closely with the chairman as well. and we were able to get a pretty robust innovation schools these into the senate bill. the bill went into conference. i was not in the conference negotiations. there was a conference vote at the end, but the work was done in a much smaller group. i cannot speak to what happened, but what i am told, it was your organization that wanted that e,novation, schools piecdf watered down, and it was watered-down in the bill presented conference wrote, and i spoke to that at the time. newhode island, our education commissioner ken
wagner has just announced his effort at what he calls empowerment schools to try to free up the gaps between the state bureaucracy that oversees education and the municipal iraq or seized that oversee education so there is more room for student-oriented and locally driven flexibility. that is on the small scale of what i was trying to do on a larger scale with innovation schools, because if you are a school and want to do something innovative, if you have to line up your local school department to get behind it and then at the same time line up your state education authority to get behind it and at the same time trying to get the federal department of education signed up, i think that kills an enormous amount of innovation because you look forward to a triple-decker bureaucratic wrangle that most schools could
never bet they could get through. this would basically create a tranche through it all where you met certain standards you could go forward. see why folks within your department might be suspicious of that, but i would urge you to try to look at the fact that we need this innovation, particularly in the wake of the no child left behind m ess, which by driving everybody into testing regimes drove non-testable curriculum out of a lot of the schools where those kids were frankly entitled to a better character them, but the program drove it off the agenda because they were all about making sure their students got through the tests. i guess i am hearing you are going to hear from you over and over again, do not continue to backpedal on innovation schools agenda. i put a lot of work into it. it was bipartisan in the senate. not one person ever said i do
not like that. we do not need to do that. this was something that was done in the dark of conference negotiations, and that is not a great way to build relationships, i have to tell you that. the marker down. i really want to see the innovation schools peace be robust in the way you developed it and the way organization develops its, and i will be very concerned if i find that in fact another cut gets taken at it as the regulations get developed in more federalsert authority over the schools. you will not just get innovation and people are anxious about what they are going to have to deal with as they try to sell that innovation program up through the triple-decker of bureaucracy that has been sitting on top of these schools were so long. i will ask you to comment on that. i. king: i want you to know share your commitment to innovation. i think the new law creates a number of important
opportunities, as states rethink their account ability systems. there is an opportunity to broaden the definition of educational excellence to make and it includes science social studies and world language and access to advanced work, socio-emotional learning. it is an opportunity for states to pursue innovations about how they think about innovations, in struggling schools, to think about art as a strategy to improve performance in struggling schools. to think of career and technical education -- mr. whitehouse: that is not getting me there. i need a system in which a school can pursue an education agenda, because if teachers are receiving here is my new innovation agenda -- and they have been receiving agendas like there'sr decades now -- always a new agenda and they
always have the and they do new reports, and the local school -based innovation gets stifled by that. that is my concern. murkowski: thank you, welcome. as you know, secretary, the alaska was compelled to stop testdate wide assessments the statewide assessments underway this year. their assessment to the alaska measures of progress began on march 29, and through a series of failures -- first of all, there were a lot of different anomalies for students throughout the state. you would be going down to question one, is there a where is questionquestion 3? these were anomalies that were not just in one district, but in multiple districts.
in some there were skipped questions. in some there was no sound on the text to speech accommodations will, assorted error messages. then we find out that a backhoe severs the providers or the vendors broadband internet cable recently, the system fails out of kansas. the cable that delivered the and to alaskan students capture their answers kept crashing. crashes,e the system the students have to restart the test from the very beginning, meaning they have to answer the same questions over and over again. this is not save their answers. when you think about frustration of a student, they do not like being in the test anyway, andwhen you start and stop
start and stop or are inconsistent, extraordinarily frustrating. what we saw was uniform testing conditions just were compromised and failed us. period on to say when it went down here thursday, they were told it was back up. but then we reported that further widespread anomalies were there. portal was not function. the cable and not been fully repaired. it was a situation was just deemed a failure, and our acting secretary of education made the determination to cancel, to stop the statewide assessment. alaskaalso told that if were to resume the testing, despite all these previous problems and the impact they have had on the reliability of the test results, the validity
, theem, that the vendor provider, is unable to make a cached assessment platform work in the state given the difficulties we have with broadband. this is not a good situation. but this is a very difficult decision that the state of alaska made because of just broad system failures. given all of the problems that we have seen related to this statewide assessment, can you give me the assurance as well as the state of alaska and our department of education that the department will not force alaska on students -- alaskan students to resume testing this year? mr. king: very concerned about administration has gone on in alaska. we have been in touch with folks at the university of kansas, the
that alaska selected to get at the issues. we have had issues in past issues around technical glitches. the key thing has been states and vendors have worked together to resolve those as best they can and to ensure that we have an assessment system that provides the information to parents and teachers each year about student performance. we will continue to work with dr. macauley and the university of kansas. murkowski: i would not disagree that you need to work through technical glitches, and if i thought these were just technical glitches, i might not be so insistent that we have some degree of discretion from you at the department that says this did not work this year. it has materially impacted the validity of this year's assessments. i know that you have had prior
situations specifically with the state of nevada. statepartment allow the to cancel that test without penalty. i am told they just received conversation that there would be no penalty on them for canceling the test due to the technical difficulties with it. so i would ask that you look at the situation with alaska and give me the assurance that the department and your assistant secretary document and the department as a whole conduct the same thorough and fair and responsible review of the alaska situation, just as you did with alaska the give opportunity to provide all data and answer all questions in writing before you make any final decision as to whether requiring them to conduct
assessment or have intruded you should think that any form of penalty might be appropriate. this is a situation again where you had a very unfortunate issue in kansas, with tobacco taking out the cable -- with the taking out the cable there. as you know in alaska, we have difficulties with broadband access in the first place. we are not sitting in the same iowa or nebraska or wherever. we have some very real challenges. and i think we saw that as it started to play out. , lookd again urge you critically at the situation in alaska, because it does not appear to me that these are technical hitches that need to be worked through. mr. king: i can assure you we
are taking the same approach that we took in our work with nevada, and prevent other incidents over the years with states. one distinction is that nevada made a variety of efforts to ensure that where was possible to administer the assessment they did so. so we are talking with dr. macauley and try to make sure we have a thoughtful approach going forward. urkowski: and please make sure that my office is informed. are talking we about workforce development, and that brings us to stem. i want to thank both the german and the ranking member for the leadership they showed in together.at i call -- greatk they had a
process. and welcome, dr. king. i want to talk about a couple things i have very i will try to do it fast. foster care. i wrote a provision with senator kidsley to allow foster and have mechanisms to do it to stay in the school that they are in if they want to when they change foster homes. i have got to know foster kids, and foster kids very often will have 10, 11, 12 foster parents, sets of parents, during their youth. and when they would change foster care to might eliminate different district, the result would be they were forced to change schools. counteractually really -- so counterproductive, because very often the school they are in is the only constant in their life.
it may be a teacher who is a mentor. it may be a sport they are in or an activity they are in. and of course their friends who make them feel -- so what senator grassley and i did was put in a thing saying if the kid chooses to stay in the school, then the school district and the social welfare agencies in the area have to find a way to get that kid, to allow to do it, they have to do it, and if that means paying for -- and that may mean paying for the transportation and the school district, the social welfare agencies have to figure it out. and what i want to make sure is that states are supportive as they implement this new provision and that will you provide strong guidance in this area by this summer? mr. king: absolutely. this is an important issue to me. having lost both my parents
early and moved along between family members, so i'm aware of the consequences of moving between homes and schools frugally. one of the first guidance documents we have committed to develop is on issues around foster youth, and we expect this summer or fall that we won't be able to put that out. we are working with health and human services on this to make sure we stay coordinated. the issue of continuity of school, the support that schools provide, issues around transportation, and so forth. mr. franken: thank you. as i said, i just came from the energy committee, we were talking about advanced manufacturing, how desperate we are for workers that are skilled, especially in science, technology, engineering, and math. in thisas so apparent
exciting hearing we had in advance and pressuring that this was -- advanced manufacturing nationwide top jobs require stem skills, but we are lagging. that is why i wrote the act to recruit stem educators and keep them in the classroom. write straightl grants, recognize, and reward -- expertd educators stem educators. this network of stem educators would mentor their peers and professionaln development programs while receiving extra pay. this works. we have seen it work in states that have already done it. i am pleased there is an toional pot of money in essa create a stem master teacher corps. it is up to the department of education to award grants for this program. budget requesthe
included $10 million for this program. want to makeg, i sure the stem master teacher corps is developed. do you plan on awarding grants for this program and what is the timetable? mr. king: i want to work with you to advance that request. we begun to work with states to think about how they might s, and we are corp hopeful the budget process will lead to the resources we need to make this a reality. franken: is senator scott returning? mr. alexander: no. we are going to have a second round of questions, but if you have another question. one more question. and theabout college,
frog and predatory lending process at for-profit schools like corinthian colleges have victimized thousands of students nationwide. these students now have a lot of debt. worthless degree, and bad credit. orse thematters w use of force arbitration which many for-profit schools rely on when customers or employees seek justice for being mistreated have prevented students from holding for-profit schools accountable in court. an investigation of 27 for-profit schools by this committee found 21 of these schools had students sign arbitration agreements as part of their enrollment process for any dispute that may arise between the student and the school. these clauses require any student who has fallen victim to
formula activity for a for-profit college, including misrepresenting cost, the transfer of credits the odds of obtaining a job, are prevented from obtaining meaningful redress. now the only recourse students have is to seek relief of the department of education. aboutg what we now know the widespread fraud in the for-profit college industry, how will you hold bad actors accountable? mr. king: as you know, in the rulemaking process on -- we put reposesto negotiators that would ban the practice of mandatory arbitration in a variety of contexts. ist rulemaking process reaching consensus, so we are
working on regulations that w we will put out for comment. we have created a new unit at the department led by an attorney from the ftc, who is building up capacity of that unit, because we want to ensure when students seek higher education, they get a meaningful education, a meaningful degree, and we know there are institutions not doing the right thing. we've taken action against some and we expect this enforcement unit will be able to aggressively act with respect to others. mr. alexander: i have a few questions. during the riyadh for his asian process, my colleagues and i worked to make sure the department retained its mandated authority to interpret and clarify the new law through regulations. what is the authority ed
maintains under the law to clarify requirements so critical? mr. king: it is important to ensure the law actually lives up to its civil rights legacy and advances the quality of opportunity in the country. we know in the past there has been a history of states and to thets under attending need of english learners, students with disabilities, students of color, low income foster kids.eless, this law gives us the opportunity to have flexibility, that there have to be guardrails in place to ensure states and district protect students' civil rights. mrs. murray: so they will have some kind of protection. mr. king: and the department is a civil rights agency, to protect students who are most vulnerable. ask aurray: i want to question about english learners. in my home state, students speak
more than 60 language and paste numerous challenges learning english and succeeding. essa makes improvements to make sure it was learners are supported and that states and schools are held accountable for their performance. how is the department planning to support states to make sure that they are prepared to intimate these new requirements with fidelity? essa has manyhink steps important for english learners, including systems requiring targets for the progress students will make to english language proficiency. this aggregating the performance of english learners who have disabilities. we are working with rulemaking committees on assessment regulations that will address participation of english learners and guided by the
feedback we have gotten by parents and civil rights organizations, we will put out guidance on needs of english states havesuring clarity and examples of best practice on how to follow the new law. mrs. murray: that is important. i appreciate that. thank you very much. alexander: i have a few more questions. senator murphy said in his you werewith you that not prescribing a methodology in the supplement and supplant section we were discussing. you were merely saying that states and local school districts could use their own methodology as long as they got the results that was desired. is that right? mr. king: they can use their own --hodology to ensure
findingander: and of what we mean in the proposed rule, and i listen to what you describe what you said that goal was, would be accurate to say that local education agency, the district, has to demonstrate the expenditure, including personal expenditures in each school, it's title i school, is not less than the average combined state and local futur per-pupil expenditure in a thetitle i school mr. king: allocation of local funds has to be at least equal to the non-title i school. an approach might include looking at staffing and program provision, but another might be student funding formula approach. mr. alexander: it granted include teachers and personnel, right? mr. king: the total impact of
the state and local dollars. mr. alexander: did you realize that it the difference in 's amendment on comparability when he sought to amend section 11-20, which did not succeed the end which he knowledged this morning did not succeed? so the effect of your proposed rule is to change the comparability law which congress did not change? mr. king: we are not addressing comparability here. you were to have the same effect as you were to change the comparability law. that would depend on the circumstances in a given district, but the key in the district is that title i dollars will be generally supplemental and not used to back -- you're saying in order to do that you have have to the spending in the title i schools come including teacher
salaries, has got to be not less than the average combined state and local expenditures in the schools. i that is comparability. that is what we did not change. no.king: the question is whether or not the total or state effort is equal to the non-title i school, and the school could address the gap through a variety of mechanisms. --y could advance advanced they could add advanced coursework. it is saying that the allocation dollarsrs of title i has to be supplemental. alexander: but you are saying mr. king: it has to be able to the title i schools.
: that is what comparability is. i saw to do it through an amendment allowing dollars to from low income families to the school they attend. that was rejected. senator bennet had his amendment. the changes in the supplement not supplant law are to some extent, maybe a large extent, due to recommendations from the center of american progress, and american enterprise institute. --ill read you a paragraph they said it is important the proposed change the one that was dustin supplant and supplement and supplant would not work whether the amount of money a school receives is equitable, even the significance of the problems caused by the supplement not supplanting.
this issue should be addressed on its own, separate from other title i fiscal issues. concerns over equity can be coversed through title i ability department. what would you say to that? mr. king: what they are referencing is the number of problems we saw with the supplement not supplant approach under no child left behind that it was a burdensome process that did not achieve the desired goal i dollarsg the title or supplemental. supplement, not supplant, is different. we were asked by a variety of stakeholders to provide clarity on implementation of supplement not supplant, and that is what we propose to the negotiated rule makers. mr. alexander: your proposal
must have the effect of equal state and local dollars in title ischools as well as non-title schools to get the title i money? mr. king: it requires state and local funds in title i schools are at least what is being spent in state and local funds in the average non-title i schools. in a district you with a variety -- mr. alexander: you have to spend as much here as here. that is what we call comparability? mr. king: the decision means there would be a variety of spending levels in the non- -- says for localit and state agencies or schools. what would you say to that? mr. king: this would not equalize spending. what it would say is that in the
title i school you got to be spending as much in state and local resources aspect in the schools.on-title i you would not be requiring districts to spend the same in all schools. you would be insuring that the title i dollars are supplemental and not being used to back fill. mr. alexander: there are plenty of ways to figure that out. like that thing the department got into with academic standards with common core. you basically said states do not have to adopt common core, then you came up with a requirement the record them all to do it. and it produced an enormous backlash which was a big part of the passage of this law i would urge you to look carefully at this supplement not supplant negotiated rulemaking proposal which is in an early stage because in my view it violates
the unambiguous provisions that were in the law that the president signed in december related to prescribing state and local funding methodologies, mandating equalize spending, interfering with state and local programs of instruction, or controlling the allocation of state and local resources. intent,es congress' which was to not change the requirements of comparability. it regulates outside the scope of the supplement not supplant requirement. it would impose unprecedented words on state and local school districts requiring an overall of almost all the state and local finance systems, hitting districts few options other than forcing the transfer of teachers to new schools. perhaps in direct conflict with collective contracts with teachers organizations. gowould require teachers to
back to the practice we had before, and according to the council, it would cost $3.9 billion for the district to address state and local funding million in the department alone. i have only one other question. flexibility for eight grade students taking advanced math. one thing we heard more than anything else in this reauthorization was overtesting and more flexibility. we thought we provided that. saysere is a rule that -- the new law permits a state to allow eight grade students to take the end of the year test for passing the advanced math test in place of the eighth grade test. you are an eighth-grader and can take out a road 2, you can
algebra 2 --out direc add au're proposing to new requirement, when you just made up, that's a state can be lexical only if it demonstrates all students in the state opportunity to be prepared for and take advanced mathematics work in middle school. where does that come from? that is not in the law. mr. king: this is being discussed by negotiators. the question is to the extent that opportunities are to be actively provided to access advanced coursework, we know that there are high schools around the country serving large numbers of low income students offeror that did chemistry. lowe are middle schools of income schools of color that do aot allow access to the algebr
course. if you're going to provide comfortable information about access of opportunity in schools, you need to make sure students have that opportunity for a school -- opportunity. for a school not to allow access to the advanced course, it means you are using the assessment access -- - echo on alexander: if you were senator, that would be a good persuasive argument, but you're not. we could have written that into law, but we did not. we basically said a state may allow an eighth grade student who is taking an advanced math course to take it and not have to take the test and the basic course at the same time. he said that is an interesting idea, we get really good to make all the state and 100,000 public schools to change the way they offer advanced math courses to
students.lot more that may be a noble aspirations, but it is not in nala. for desk in the law. for agency that only funds 4% of the title i funding of what state and local governments spend, those decision off -- ought to be left to the elected officials. mr. king: you cannot get comparable information about student performance if the assessment is only available to some students and not others. and so the goal here is to ensure the assessment system provides -- mr. alexander: you're not in charge of the e system. the log parser result of those tests be part of the accountability systems. what we're trying to get rid of is you here telling states what to do with the results of tests. it must have made common sense to say if you are an eighth
grade student taking an advanced math course that you can take it you do not have to take the basic eighth grade test. the department allowed states to do that in the waiver. why are you making this up now? theking: the design of accountability system, there is flexibility, but states are to generate operable information withinhe performance of any given grade. if you have an assessment that is available only to some students -- mr. alexander: are you going to decide that? mr. king: states with the side. -- mr. alexander: why don't you let them decided? you put in a new requirement that you can only take responsibility congress gave if you do what the department now wants to legislate, describe that you offer students to
take advanced mathematics coursework -- it is hard to know what that would mean anyway. if you were asked by one of the senators, you have anything else destiny said proposed regulations to the office of management and on accountability systems, state plans, innovation, assessment, pilot -- when are you going to make details of those proposals? public ? what can you tell us about areas of the law that you intend to issue guidance on and write technical assistance? mr. king: the accountability regulations are now with omb for review. we expect this spring, summer, those regulations will be posted for comments. we will later develop regulations based on the input we have received from plans andrs on state on the innovative assessment
pilot. we expect those regulations to be out for public comment in the fall. the goal is to have all the regulations in place by the end of the year, so that states are in a position to develop plans in spring and summer of next year, submit those plans in the spring of summer of next year so they are ready for full implementation in 2017. we have developed guidance for , homeless students, foster care students, and english learners. we are continuing to get feedback from stakeholders and not additional guidance documents based on what states, educators, parents, organizations are telling us they need in order to ensure clarity and have examples of best practice. thank you, dr.
king. i hope you will reflect on this hearing today. we have many differences of opinion on this committee, and we are able to come to a law, and each of us can speak for ourselves, but for me, i think that we did not intend that you come up with some clever way to use one provision, the supplement and supplant provision, to change another provision, the weparability provision, that deliberately did not change because we cannot agree on how to change it. we left the law exactly like it is. i hope you will take another look at that. responsibility is to execute the law and abide by the letter of the law, and i do not think the beginning of those little proposals suggests that is what some of the employees are doing. we will look forward to follow the implementation of the law carefully during the rest of the year. -- get myre no other
theluding comments here -- hearing record will remain open for 10 business days. man bears may submit russians for the record within the time they would like. later being here. the committee will stand adjourned. mr. king: thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
>> and the savings from that would take the $30 billion it would take. and both of us who sponsored that law think it was better to spend those dollars giving students a chance to continue. it is very good policy. the only question is how do we pay for it. theset do you think of just to give students $300 -- >> that is interesting. i have been watching decisions by the state to make incentives for students to financial -- financial incentives or students get through college more rapidly. the university of tennessee in knoxville is saying you may take 12 hours, but you will pay for 15. what they are finding is more
students taking 15 hours and paying for. i had to think about that and see if that is the best use of those dollars, but the direction of that as something i agree with. >> thank you. >> you can watch this hearing again anytime on our website, and some news to pass on to you. politico reporting paul ryan it will hold a news conference this afternoon to defendant libby o rule out white -- tw a white house bid today. 3:15 today eastern.
we hope to bring that to you. merrickcourt nominee garland continued his capitol hill meetings this morning, having breakfast with chuck grassley. picture here from the senator's instagram count. senator grassley and judge garland arrived early so the meeting started at 7:45. the meeting was cordial and pleasant, and as he indicated, senator grassley explained why the senate will not be moving forward during this hyper partisan election year. senator grassley thanked judge garland for his service. judge garland met with lisa murkowski. this afternoon he has visits with cory booker and pat toomey. showcaseonth we studen
our studentcam winners. the theme was "road to the white want" -- what issues do presidential candidates to discuss. one of our winners was from sandy spring, maryland. matt, 10th-graders, want candidates to discuss campaign finance law in their video titled "campaign finance: the issue of all issues." >> let's talk about an issue that affects every other issue across our nation. it may not be what you think of because campaign-finance is not exactly a glamorous issue. that is right. campaign finance, the way money date,from donor to candi the inherent problem with unlimited money in politics.
84% of americans think money has too much influence in politics. for being such a monument of problem in our democracy, campaign-finance is under discussed. candidates need to tell us their plan for getting finance reform, because it is the issue of all issues. to learn more about the basics of exabe finance, i wept to talk with my u.s. government teacher at sherwood high school. mr. allen, why do candidates even care about money in an election? >> money essentially buys you name recognition. without name recognition, when the voters go in on election day and see your name, they are not going to make a connection they should vote for you. >> what is the citizens united supreme court case? >> changed the way that the first amendment of speech applies to the public funding of federal elections. >> what did that do?
>> what it did was remove the restrictions on what outside money, money not connected to the campaign, can be used for. the outside groups which can raise unlimited sums of money may now spend them in unlimited amounts to explicitly say whatever they want. >> why would money in politics even be a problem? >> the people who are opposed to it claim that if you're going to equate money with freedom of speech, that those people with the most money will then have the most influence in an election. >> these are 120 individual smiley faces, really. each smiley face represents one million american households. here's a number for you -- 567.3 million dollars, that's all of the money raised in 2015 for the 2016 presidential election.
well, half of all of that came from just 158 families. to represent that we'd have to take a single smiley face and its original01% of size. 50% of all the money raised for the 2016 presidential election so far came from this tiny sliver. you might be wondering how the government makes sure all that money is regulated? i went to the federal election commission in d.c. to talk to commissioner alan weintraub about the process. >> we run federal agency that administers and enforces the laws governing campaign finance. as commissioner we are in charge of the management of the agency and policy decisions that the commission makes. >> how has the citizens united supreme court case affected the flow of money and politics?
>> we are starting to see now more money being raised and spent, but coming from fewer donors and less transparency because the money is now shifting over to the super p.a.c.s and in some cases to organizations where they can accept unlimited contributions. >> do you think that's a good thing? >> i think it really is not a great trend for democracy. if you believe every citizen has the same rights and representation in the government. >> do you think the fines the fkfk imposes are enough of a deterrent? a they're an important deterrent and critically important that the agency play a significant role in monitoring and enforcing the law and making sure that people who violate the law are held accountable in a significant way. if we have seen challenges in that regard in the past few years. >> is the s.e.c. working to stop rule breakers? >> i think this agency can work
and has worked in the past. a lot of people say set up to fail. there are six commissioners and by law no more than three can be from any one party. so some people say it's designed to gridlock. i think it's designed to compromise. fortunately, compromise has been a little bit in short supply around here in recent years. >> here's why the s.e.c. sluggishness should concern you. candidates are raising a ton of money. 2016 presidential candidate jeb bush has already raised four times more than every candidate in 2012 combined. harvard professor larry ran his presidential campaign on this issue. when i talked to him he had some pretty harsh things to say about our current system. you often say money is corrupting to government. how so? >> i think the corrupting influence is the influence that as the candidate spends if
you're a member of congress 30% to 70% of your time raising money. >> do things like super p.a.c.s make that worse? >> what that means this is fundraising, it's concentrated in a smaller and smaller number of people. what that does is create a dependence on a tiny slice of the 1% which isn't in any sense representative of the american public. >> at this point you may be wondering what can even be done? you would be surprised how many different ideas are out there and just waiting to be implemented. >> we need new legal action. we need buckley and citizens united overturned. >> what this act needs to do is make sure that the laws stay up with the changes that the supreme court makes. >> i think the much more important change is to establish citizens for an election. public funding of election. >> we should fully disclose to the public the sources of
campaign exten penndy tures. >> it's really free television time is the core, is the core of this solution. >> it would essentially amend the constitution to permit congress to regulate campaign finance. it's ok that people have different ideas on how to approach this issue, what matters is doing something. inaction and silence are just not options. the 2016 presidential candidates need to tell us their plan because until then every issue will be affected by this issue. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> to watch all of the prize winning documentaries, visit studentcam.org. >> some campaign news from the hill today. democratic presidential candidate, hillary clinton, leads rival bernie sanders by 13 points in new york with a week to go until that state's
primary, according to a new pole. she has 50% support to sanders' 37% according to a new york one college poll released monday night. secretary clinton is aiming for victory in new york to blunt a series of eight wins in the last nine contests for senator sanders. despite his hot streak, senator sanders still trails in pledge dell cats with 1,037 to hillary clinton's 1,287. the new poll as a margin of error of 4.2 points. can you read more about that at thehill.com. here's a look at. so ads running in advance of next week's pry marery. >> he says we should punish women who have abortion. >>
there has to be punish. >> mexicans who come to america are rapists. and that we should ban muslims from coming here at all. >> total and complete shut down. >> donald trump says we can solve america's problems by turning against each other. it's wrong. and it goes against everything
new york and america stands for. >> with coach at stake, she's the one tough enough to stop trump. hillary
clinton. >> i'm hillary clinton and i approved this message. >> new york, what makes it think bigger, go bolder, push for a living wage that's higher? for tuition-free public college, justice that works for all. for a middle class that must be saved. values, forged in new york. native son. who knows what we know. we are all in this together. >> i'm bernie sanders, and i approved this message. >> madam secretary, we are with you. 72 of our delegate votes to the next president of the united tates --
work here at the council. i want to well come you-all to today's -- welcome you-all to today's meeting. this is part of the series on international economics. i want to welcome also members around the nation and world participating in this meeting through live stream. i think you know this is going to be on the record. there's an introduction and description of secretary lew's bio in your packs, but just to say that he was sworn as the 76th treasury secretary in 2013. before that he ran the o.m.b. and one thing i remember as being relevant to what he's going to be discussing today is before that in the early obama administration when he was deputy secretary of state and running the first ever sort of deep look at all the tools of development assistance across the u.s. government, the quadrennial development review,
shows that his involvement in these questions of the interaction between economics and state craft is rather extensive. i'm going to welcome the secretary up to the podium and he's going to speak and then we'll have a conversation. thank you. secretary lew: thanks very much, sebastian, for that introduction and your leadership at the council. this is a remarkable institution with a long history of intellectual influence on america's foreign policy. as always it's an honor to be here today. american leadership in the global economy is something we all care deeply about. i want to thank gideon and his foreign affairs team for publishing my essay on this topic. the piece opens with a story about the difficulty of getting reform to congress. he asks, why was it so hard? why was it so hard to take five
years to win approval at the end of last year? after all, the i.m.f. has been a symbol of u.s. leadership since its birth at the end of world war ii. and along with the world bank and world trade organization, it provided the underlying architecture of a global economic system that's helped produce remarkable gains over the past 70-plus years. american leadership was essential to the creation of that system and the progress that it's yielded. yet even though it's supported the well-being of our citizens and helped the united states advance our values and our foreign policy objectives, american's global economic leadership has not always been popular here at home. in the case of i.m.f. reform it took five years to convince congress to act. the delay that led many in the international community to question america's leadership position in the global economy. the ultimate passage of i.m.f. reform was pivotal. but it was just one of many important steps needed to sustain our economic leadership
and adapt it to the challenges of our time. we know that the global landscape of the next century will be very different than that of the post-war era. and if we want it to work for the american people, we need to embrace new players on the global economic stage and make sure that they meet the standards of the system we created and that we have a strong say in any new standards. the worst possible outcome would be to step away from our leadership role and let others fill in behind us. making the case for global engagement is responsibility we all share. and we must make the choices necessary to ensure both the future of the international architecture we built and america's position in it. over the last year the obama administration has made significant progress advancing u.s. leadership in the global economy. we work with congress to secure i.m.f. reform, trade promotion authority, and re-authorization of the export-import bank. we reached agreement with our international partners on the
transpacific partnership, landmark climate agreement, the iran nuclear deal, and stepped up strategy to confront terrorist financing. to ensure the benefits of our global role, that those benefits remained available in future generations, we have more work ahead of us. since its establishment in 1944, the system of cooperation has evolved and endured by providing a foundation for mutual economic gain that could not be achieved by individual countries alone. since 1950 real per capita income worldwide has quadrupled, raising live standards for billions of people, extending life expectancies and expanding access to education. clear ruse foreglobal economic relations, good opportunities and incentives to innovate, invest, and work. the critical drivers of economic progress. a system of mutual responsibility does not automatically enforce itself.
it requires responsible american leadership. it also requires constant improvement to raise standards and create better mechanisms to ensure countries keep their crit commitments, refrain from unfair competitive behavior, and cooperate to confront new challenges. the rules basis tell was a major reason the global financial crisis never turned into a second great depression. the united states and other nations were able to coordinate efforts through the g-20 and i.m.f. to avoid the downward spiral of protectionism and predatory macroeconomic policies that characterize previous eras. the world's major economies, the united states, the eurozone, japan, and china launched simultaneous economic stimulus programs and mobilized financial assistance to vulnerable parts of the global system. we built on that cooperation in recent years to advance important u.s. goals, including the i.m.f.'s response to fiscal stress caused by the ebola epidemic in 2014 and support for ukraine following russia's aggression in crimea. the scale and speed of
assistance in both instances would not have been possible if the united states had to act alone or to stitch together donor contributions. the simple fact is that international financial institutions amplify u.s. influence on the global stage. we also worked closely with partners to implement financial sanctions to show how this same architecture can be used to persuade maligned actors to abandon behavior that threatens peace and security. the iran agreement is a direct result of the financial pressure imposed by an unprecedented global coalition. and we have and continue to work closely with our allies to impose costs on russia for its actions in ukraine and on entities that are betting north korea's nuclear violations. the international coordination and international standing cannot be taken for granted and we must take the necessary steps to preserve and strengthen our position. responsible and sustainable u.s. leadership in the global
economic system begins at home. we have to lead by example as we did by bouncing back from the financial crisis that threatened america's place in the global economy. the u.s. economy has now produced the longest streak of uninterrupted private sector job growth in america history. between 2009 and 2015, the budget deficit has declined from nearly 10% from g.d.p. to 2 /2%. yet along the way political brinksmanship led some to question america's capacity to meet this moment of leadership. the thread of government shutdowns and default heightened global anxieties. washington's inability to reach a consensus on domestic priorities such as rebuilding aging infrastructure and reforming the broken business tax code, priorities with bipartisan support, creates unnecessary risks to america's future economic strength. the reason advances -- recent
advances including multiyear budget targets, re-authorization of the export-import bank have demonstrated that we have the capacity to work together to make important progress. but much more work remains. beyond our borders, the world's economic challenges will not end with the current administration nor will the ongoing agenda for u.s. leadership. and there are a number of priorities that we must continue to press. first, we must work with our partners to further modernize the i.m.f. allowing it to intensify its scrutiny of critical issues like exchange rates, currents account imbalances, and shortfalls in global aggregate demand because more information means better policy cooperation and more efficient financial markets, the i.m.f. should continue to promote greater transparency among its members when it comes to economic data, especially as it relates to foreign reserves. second, we must work with our partners to make the world bank and regional development banks more efficient and effective. these institutions need to have the resources and policy
expertise to help countries promote sustainable development and address challenges like state fragility, forced migration, natural disasters, and disease epidemics. there must also be able to mobilize resource that is cut carbon emissions and build society's resilient to climate change. third, we have must modernize the global trading system by pushing for innovative features in new trade agreements. t.p.p. for example includes strength and labor environmental provisions, robust protection force trade and service, and controls on the behaviors of state-owned enterprises to ensure fair competition. under the agreement members have also pledged to avoid manipulating exchange ray rathes. these high standards need to be model for future agreements. fourth, to prevent a repeat of the financial crisis, we must continue to lead efforts to reform the international financial regulatory system. u.s. leadership in thisaire has already resulted in more
rigorous capital standards for banks, greater transparency in the derivatives market, and stronger tools for managing the failure of financial institutions. but many of the critical standard setting forms in place, the focus must gift to comprehensive and consistent implementation and close attention to emerging threats. fifth, we must continue to combat terrorist financing, corruption, money laundering, and other financial crimes. the pressure strengthening its anti-money laundering and counter terrorist financing rules at home, working through the financial action task force to improve enforcement globally and partnering with countries to combat terrorist financing specifically against isil. because we must keep up with innovation in the private sector and by our adversaries, regulators must update their regimes while ensuring regulations do not impede legitimate provision of financial services, especially for the underserved. finally, we are committed to building on the progress that we have made in cooperating with
emerging market partners, including brazil, argentina, india, and mexico and keep such as facilitating investment, improving the implementation of tax policies, promoting financial inclusion, and combating money laundering and terrorist financing. as the two largest economies, the united states and china, also have a unique responsibility to work together to advance shared prosperity, maintain a constructive global economic order, and make progress on critical challenges like climate change this year we'll hold the seventh u.s.-china strategy and economic dialogue a platform that has strength yened relations between our two countries and provide add forum for discussing important priorities like china's shift toward consumption-led growth and greater transparency and predictibility in its policymaking. while the progress of the last year has helped to advance this important agenda, we cannot take our global role for granted, and we must always think about how our choices will affect our leadership in the future.
with vision and foresight previous generations of americans have provided a foundation on which to violence our values and build a prosperous future for the united states and other countries. our task now is to strengthen that architecture and adapt it to new challenges. if we come together and accomplish this, we'll not only support today's prosperity, we'll also ensure that the next generation of americans inherits an even stronger platform for navigating tomorrow's economic landscape. thank you very much. [applause] sebastian: so we have a bit more than 45 minutes and we'll divide that between conversation up here and then we'll get to the members. i do want to hear from people. i thought i'd start by just in a slightly cheeky way questioning the premise. u lay out this view that the
institution's embed u.s. values, expand western influence. i think this is the counsel and most people will agree with that, for the most part. but you could also observe that the central feature of the bretton woods architecture when it was adopted in 1944 was a fix exchanged rate regime. that was probably the most single important part of it and undone by richard nixon unceremoniously. and the world moved on and we found the floating exchange rates were good. so i want to ask you to look forward and and ask a question about the central essay which is maybe there are bits of international financial architecture we shouldn't necessarily support. that might be dispensable. might not be around in 10 years. can you think of any that you do not think of as indispensable? secretary lew: i think that the key is to think of the
international architecture as an evolving, adapting set of institutions. the world at the end of the world war ii looked so different than today. the role of the united states was so different than it is today. it wasn't good. it wasn't good that the rest of the world lost its manufacturing capacity. that there was no other hard curn -- currency that had any promise of being an alternative to the dollar. and the system that evolved provided a foundation between the 1940's and 1970's to see a period of growth that has led to not just economic growth but geopolitical stability. some of the political developments in the 1970's, 1980's, 1990's showed when you move towards a more market-oriented system, sharing a set of values, political reforms tend to follow. i think as we go forward the thing that we have to keep in mind is that the world isn't going to look in 10, 20, or 30
years the way it looks today. the thing we need to make sure from a u.s. perspective as a constant is we have a role in those institutions to help govern how they change as they go along we can't look at it as being completely frozen in tifmente while others will decide they are going to group together in a different set of organizations where they make different rules. i think the thing about the i.m.f., world bank, are that they are institution that is are very inclusive. there's a very strong u.s. role that we have earned. and going forward i think these institutions have to be looking at the challenges of the future. you asked about the i.m.f. let me shift and give an answer perhaps a little more about the world bank. we have over the last year seen the world bank play a very important role in the discussions on climate change. we have seen the development of
lending facilities that are designed to deal with tchallention of the future, which -- challenges of the future, which is governmental and public-private partnerships to invest in the kinds of things that will lead to a cleaner environment. at the i.m.f. if you look at the period between 2008 and now, it has played a significant role both in stabilizing the post financial crisis environment and also in responding to the crisis. i mentioned two in my remarks. ebola and ukraine. we don't know what those challenges in the future will be. i don't think anyone predicted ebola even a month before it became an international crisis. what we know is we need to have flexible international bodies to go to congress to get funding, to deal with something in short term like beebowla is a challenge. sebastian: let's take both
those, the world bank and i.m.f., you raised both of them as key institutions of the order created in 1944. in terms of the world bank i think it's certainly true that the government system on the board has led to the disadvantages of the u.n. security council which is way too narrow for the world in wit power has risen. and the u.n. general assembly which is way too democratic, frankly. that strikes me as an incontestable point. but the tools of the world bank's lending seem to me this evolution you are mentioning might be -- for example, the ibid, main lending window which lends interest rates that cover the world bank's costs so the submarket but not a give away, the premise was a world in which the clients did not have access
to global capital markets. that's out of the window. they all do have access to commercial, private capital. what the residual rationale? the classic answer would be there are certain things like global public goods, where you want more lending than the market would deliver for those things because they are global public goods. single countries don't have enough interest in creating enough of them. as i understand it the ibid's lending interest rates do not differentiate. they don't give you a break, cheaper interest rate, if you're borrowing to create a better public good. secretary lew: i think if you look at the discussion that we had just last year at the funding for development conversation, it illustrates your point. being kind of inbetween the security council and general assembly. there were very significant
debates about how much world bank resource should be put in to climate. there was a debate about whether it was competing with more traditional forms of lending or whether it should be all additive. i think it was resolved in a way that was quite constructive where the world bank became a major partner in making resources available to deal with what is one of the most pressing public goods of our generation dealing with investing in a more energy efficient, less carbon intensive -- sebastian: right now there is a surge just reported in lending which is driven by the budget gap in countries like nigeria and where the private markets are being less acome dayive in lending for general budget expenditures. a large portion of what the bank does is substituting complementing, competing, however you want to see it, with private capital markets.
it's not creating global public growth. secretary lew: i think it's a mistake to think of any of these with oneons as dealing challenge. dealing with maintaining basic financial stability in a country is certainly core to what the i.m.f. is, even though it does many things beyond that. the world bank has traditionally helped shore up systems which meet the standards that are set by entities like the i.m.f. to be on a sustainable path. i think having multiple points of access to make sure that you avoid the destabilizing consequences of having either cyclical or price shock effects that lead to economic and political destabilization is very important. it's not that you choose between doing climate change or the other. the question is how do you strike the right balance? i think that one of the things that the world bank has done