we will continue to eat up a majority of the fire budget if we don't look at those issues. >> you've looked at the discussion draft, what provisions do you believe would be most helpful in accelerating management and creating the jobs including habitat, we work with a lot of conservation and others that are pushing for these kind of provisions. what you think is most helpful? >> thank you. well again, impediments to success our capacity of the forest service. they are under title i as far as the fire borrowing goes. if there was additional money spent and fair money that we could put back into fuel reduction projects that would be very helpful. that's number one under title iii. some of the provisions, i believe it's important and it works. :

i force are at risk but wet floors, high intensity fires are also at risk. we would encourage you to think about that in changing those few loads as well. >> thanks for the input on the. i want to talk about litigation relief. you indicate hundreds of millions of board feet are encumbered by litigation. if montana bloggers and mills had faster uninhibited access to that type of volume, roughly how many montana jobs could be sustained or created?

>> as i said in my testimony just under litigation alone we've got about 44,000 truckloads that could be impacted. not all that is under preliminary injunction. a lot of that is not being advertised. if we could at least acknowledge that we have a problem because it's been difficult for some folks in congress to acknowledge that we have a problem, and then work together to find a path for to resolving that, that doesn't require opening up equal access to justice. there are other things we can do that have in my written testimony that are good for discussion. as far as the jobs, you can't just get a multiplier but it would be public and it would've three or 400 jobs. we lost 500 last year. we will is 200 this year. >> peter, thanks for coming from montana. i do appreciate your participation. i've been a proponent of collaborative efforts. thank you for that.

as i noted, 21 active lawsuits going on in montana. 13 on projects developed through the collaborative process. nearly all of them involve groups that are not part of the process. they are groups that come in after the fact you're not within your concerns are respected them with some of the management proposal in this draft, do you acknowledge litigation is a problem in montana and is unable to work of collaboratives and a slowed important restoration work to our national forests? >> it's good to the rest of many montanans. we have the challenges, challenges in montana. where challenges nationally. many of them are capacity related. on the beaver had deer lodge i think we're limited in our team's ability to grow and analyze, get projects ready we've seen all sorts of capacity and resource challenges of there. people are frustrated. i've worked with members of your

staff, members of the montana wood products association, forest services is frustrated. people are frustrated. >> you work in a collaborative process. i appreciate that. we've got 13 of the 21 lawsuits are against -- you think litigation and comers of? >> they can lead to better decisions, more durable decisions. >> the litigation he thinks slowest downcourt encumbrance, collaborative process? >> litigation plays a role in the system. >> so you say it doesn't slow us down? getting the collaborative projects uproot? >> compared to what they know will happen i suppose it does. you did say it slows us down but you know montana's care about the public land. we need to keep these processes open. this is a challenge.

people are frustrated i get that from the. i hear that. we want to get the work done. we are working with the for the authority. we have sce moving outside of butte. we are trying to get work done. if are rolling up their sleeves. this is not easy. we are committed to doing this work. my fear is that if we come into strong on this we are going to see more conflict in fact. i just have to urge caution where you're going with a line of questioning. it could be very disruptive. >> the destruction right that is what collaborative process is moving through. the disruption is as we move through long collaborative unifying processes, fringe groups community and and file suits. and basically stop all the progress. that's the frustration. >> you have to develop winning solutions that are durable based on pesticides and to move forward and be implemented.

that's the strength of the collaborative process. it allows those to do that. >> senator daines, i allowed additional time. i think about what is that litigation delays the sometimes litigation is intended to do nothing more than the delay. i think my friend and colleague from in town sees that. we certainly see that in alaska. he expressed frustration. boy, be on the receiving end of it. senator cantwell. >> thank you, madam chair. i want to thank mr. nelson for his comments about nepa at the challenges we would face if we made the changes that are in the draft that can lead to more complexity. i certainly understand that senator from montana's frustration because of a lot of collaboratives at a fork in our state. want to do something before you leave but i believe it right here so that we don't -- you can grab it right now, thank you. i think the issue for me is this

research that's been done on the line pilot. i don't know, mr. pimlott our mr. nelson, not that i'm excluding but also commenting on it but cal poly university released some findings on how much of the fire risk you would reduce by reducing some of that fuel. their number was so large that i don't even know how to get my head around it. it's pretty hard when you think that what happened in a carlton complex, to think that just some fuel reduction but it prevented another nine acres in one afternoon from being destroyed. but nontheless, we now have some research that does show that this kind of fuel reduction is making an impact. i wanted to talk to any of those real-life examples that you know about, dr. goldmark, the carpenter fire road where we made some improvements, or mr. pimlott, any of these areas

where you've actually seen the fuel reduction work. and what they are trying to capitalize on in this size that was released by the university is that done strategically you are reducing the size of the fire. that is i think what we, knowing that the conditions are so explosive, i think this is what we have to aim for. i did know if you wanted to get some maybe real-life examples of that. >> so thank you for that question, senator cantwell. we've had many large fires. agenda in the state of washington, and both this fire season in 14 and 15 have set new records. as a matter fact i have recently toured the tripod fire which occurred in 2006, 180,000-acre fire that caused $180 million to suppress. in that fire which was a very large far as well as the carlton fire and others where there has been an active management before

the fire, it has a demonstrable impact on the severity of the fire. in many cases the fire doesn't even penetrate the areas that have been managed. it is not a guarantee that is the single best thing we can do in advance the fire is to do the fuel reduction work and the prescribed fire work to date with the fuel that the firewood pit need to pass through that forest. i'm wholly supportive of the pilot project. i think restoration is one of the critical steps that we must take to help make our forests more resilient. >> do you have an idea of what some of those restoration projects might have done? it's hard to categorize but they're coming up with a pretty big number. they are saying it's more than can you get as big as a 50% reduction in the fire by doing the right kind of treatment. is that something, mr. pimlott, that you think is -- >> i think it is a possibility of the language and the discussion draft is an opportunity for us to test that,

that model. i think absolutely having been a forester for 30 years now that preaching active engagement in forest management, we have several examples in the sierra we're thinning from below, reducing the forced stand has kept the fire low intensity battle to protect of the forest but communities. earlier i failed to show a slide that you may have trouble seeing it from other but a picture tells a thousand words. this is the central sierra a year ago, and just this spring. what you are seeing is a little tree mortality and almost an entire next conifer almost completely decimated. not by fire, by insect mortality. so forest management, thinning and this kind of pilot project can have a start look at not just reducing the fire intensity that is active forest management for health which reduces the impact and potential for epidemic insect outbreaks, et cetera. so absolutely engaging in forest

management including a pilot project we would certainly do see some in california in this region. >> thank you. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you, senator cantwell. we've got over the time that i promised we would be adjourning but i do have a question for mr. nichols. this relates to be tac recommendations relating to the inventory. you served on the caucus advisory committee so i'm going to rely -- tongass advisor to ad some good luck on you for a little background on how the transition and the inventory really kind of came together within those discussions. in my questioning to mr. bonnie, i made clear our red the statement from the tac about the inventory being the number one priority. and he seems to suggest, and actually he did state, that the

forest service love all the data that it needs to guarantee the success apparently of a young growth transition by the end of his summer survey on prince of wales. and indicated that there can be this parallel track, if you will, that the inventory has begun. we appreciate that. but that it can go alongside the forest pla plan amendment proce. can you please speak to why it was important that the tac recommend a comprehensive stand level inventory? also further to the point, has anything changed since januar january 21 win that state it was pretty conclusively made, that remains the number one priority? and then is it possible that the forest service really has all that it needs in terms of, will

have all the needs in terms of an inventory when it completes the review this summer? >> i spent 18 months on the tac of seems like a lifetime to me, but basically there were two pieces do that. the first piece was we knew it would be pulled down a perspective is about 60% of those stands a good one to try to put a timber together. we knew we would have somewhere in the young growth. we spent time in the field with a fish biologist. she showed us dreams that were logged during the beginning that would be protected. we know we will get some fall down. we knew we could not get an answer from the forest service of what kind of fall down to use. in our modeling we did we did know fall down. acres to reduce the to and 50,000 acres the forest service has. the second point was the conservation community was pushing hard for absolute dates on ending old growth. we couldn't give it to them. we did not have the information

because one of the things we agree to was that for every acre of young growth we would stop harvesting in a gruff old growth. that went vice versa. for every acre of young growth you did not get, you had to do more old growth. for the first time that was kind of a leverage their on both sides of it. so the tac, when mr. bonnie came, the tac the we head up that inventory. it just was not there. i attended a meeting last week. the forest service is 50,000 acres of information on 250,000 acres. they are pulling that over the other 250,000 acres. they will tell you it is highly debatable. they do not have enough information. the tac position was we needed that because we had to make final decisions on when to stop the old growth harvest. we just couldn't do that. we just did not have enough information to make that decision. the other thing is the acres

left in this plan amendment are so low that if we lose part of the acres to this fall down or to the un-economic ability, and will not be a timber industry. they will not be enough to acres left of harvestable timber to be harvestable timber to give them into any kind of industry. >> so that's the reason why you have to get this inventory correct. >> you only have one time. as you guys have seen in all this legislation it never gets undone. if we make a mistake now that would be no timber industry. the communities in southeast alaska will suffer greatly because of it. >> so the tac continues to recommend a comprehensive stand level inventory. that is not change? >> that has not changed a bit. >> as far as this parallel track that's been suggested that we can move forward with the forest plan amendment process, while at the same time conducting an

inventory, does that work or not work? >> from the industry side, what i see out there today is that the tac makes a very strong recommendations. it only took part of those recommendations. they did that take them all. a timber sales they're working on today do not follow the tac recommendations. there's going to be a downfall in the mud of young growth as they don't intensely harvest the stance. what we see since the tac recommendation today is that the forest service is still not implemented the on the ground recommendations we have made. those are difficult recommendations and that's what's going to determine whether this thing will work or not. right now we did not see where there is a will to get the recommendations in place. >> we are going to continue to push to make sure that we have a firm understanding that it's been suggested that somehow or other of my motivation is to

delay the forest plan amendment, delayed indefinitely. my intention is not to delay the plan to my intention is to make sure that that plan is based on the true facts on the ground, a true honest understanding as to what our inventory is that will allow us to base their decisions on good crowded signs that will allow us to get it right because as you've suggested, we've got one opportunity to get it right. i appreciate the work that you and others have done on the tac but i know it is dead easy. i know that it has been difficult but i appreciate the good work i also appreciate you recognizing that affect all of the recommendations from the tac were not put into play. i didn't thank you for what you have done nothing to advance these very important issues.

with that, ladies and gentlemen, i appreciate the extra time you'vyouhave given us, and the e as well. as we continue to work to refine this draft proposal, we would certainly welcome and encourage your continued input if members have questions for the record, we will make sure we give them out to you quickly, but it didn't thank you for the near. and the committee stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> in about 25 minutes remarks from president obama on global entrepreneurship. he will take part in a panel discussion with facebook founder and ceo mark zuckerberg at this if held in stanford, california. sea life at 145 eastern on c-span. also jake sullivan, foreign policy adviser for democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton speaks at the truman center's annual conference, event includes panel discussions on terrorism financing, conflict zones and refugee migration. see those comments live at

5:15 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> on american history tv on c-span3. >> by the end of the 1880s you have a dramatic upsurge, a tremendous surge in veterans organizations, and the membership of these organizations and in the statues that they create. >> university of georgia professor scott nesbitt discusses the ongoing debate over confederate war monuments and memorials, and a menu with a result of campaigns by southern women during the reconstruction era. and into the late 19th century. >> back in 1976, mr. carter said trust me. and a lot of people did it and

now many of those people are out of work spent the republican alternative is the biggest tax giveaway in history. they called it breaking law. i call it a free lunch americans cannot afford. >> the republican and democratic convention with former california governor ronald reagan becoming the gop nominee, and president jimmy carter accepted the democratic nomination. on july 1 the smithsonian's national air and space the same will commemorate its 40th anniversary come and sunday at 6 p.m. eastern on the american artifacts -- >> in 1976 we were wrapping up a golden age of human exploration with the apollo missions to the moon, and we were launching into the first golden age of planetary exploration with the missions of the 1970s to mars

and to the outer planets. we are now in another golden age of planetary exploration, particularly on mars spent we toured the museum with the head of the museum's space history department and learn about the story of human space exploration on the moon to mars. >> i've come to see that this relates again to president nixon, that a great leader of character as a person who has the ability to discern the future and lead a people to it and threw it. spent for the complete american history tv weekend schedule go to c-span.org. >> c-span road to the white house coverage continues sunday

with remarks from hillary clinton. that's taking place this year in indianapolis and you can see her comments live at 4 p.m. eastern on c-span. than an interview with fellow candidate bernie sanders on his life and career of politics. senator sanders that dan would c-span earlier this week for that conversation. we were sure to you sunday at 6:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. eastern. >> with the political primary season over, c-span the road to the white house takes you to this summer's political conventions. watched the republican national convention starting july 18 with live coverage from cleveland. >> so we'll be be going into the convention no mud water happens and i think we will go in so strong. >> watch the democratic national convention starting july 25 with live coverage from philadelphia. >> let's go forward, let's win

the nomination, ended july let's return as a unified party. >> and then we take our fight for social, economic, racial and environmental justice to philadelphia, pennsylvania. >> every minute of the republican and democratic parties national convention on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. >> next, testimony from education professionals on the implementation of the every student succeeds act or witnesses were questioned on the rulemaking process, federal funds and state resources. held by the house education committee, this is three hours. >> a quorum being present a commitment education workforce will come to order. welcome back, mr. secretary. thank you for joining us. when we last met, the processor

and putting the every student succeeds act was just getting underway. we had a healthy discussion about the bipartisan reforms congress passed and the president signed into law. those reforms are designed to restore state and local control over k-12 schools. that's not just my own personal view. it's a view held by governors, teachers, parents, superintendents who recently wrote that quote the every student succeeds act is clear. education decision-making of us with state and district and the federal is to support and inform those decisions. it's also the view of most honest observers. as "the wall street journal" editorialized, along represents the largest evolution of federal control to the states in a quarter century. the reason for this hearing and our continued oversight is to ensure the letter and intent of the law are followed. a critical part of our effort is holding the agency accountable for the steps undertaken to implement the law. when you were with us in february you said you can trust that we will abide by the letter of the law as we move forward.

that's a strong statement and is one of several commitments you've made that the department would act responsibly. but actions speak louder than words. we have seen troubling side of the department pulling the country in a different direction than the one congress provided in the law. the first troubling sign is the rulemaking process itself. there are concerns about integrity of the negotiated rulemaking committee including the makeup of the panel, the lack of rural representation and accuracy of statements made by department staff. the point is to build consensus among those directly affected by the law. yet it seems the department decided to stack the deck. the second time in science runs the long-standing policy that federal funds are a supplement, not supplant, state and local resources. prior to the every student succeeds act this rule is applied differently depending on how middle income students in school serve. some schools face more onerous requirements that others. last year congress decided to go would be enforced equally across

all schools. now school district must simply show that funds are distributed fairly without prescribing a specific approach for outcome. the law explicitly prohibits the secretary from interfering, yet that is precisely what your proposal would do. what the department is proposing would be held illegal and harmful to students and communities. it would impose a financial burden on states and forest countless public school districts to change how they hire and pay their teachers. this effort is trying to achieve an end congress deliberately rejected and that the nonpartisan congressional research service warned goes beyond a plain language reading of the statute. no doubt your good intentions but you do not have the legal authority to do this. i strongly urge you to abandon this flawed scheme. the third troubling sign is the department's account of the proposal. let me note that our policies in this proposal we are pleased to see such as how states set

long-term goals and measure interim progress. but in a number of ways also see the departments that habits for making decisions that must be left to states. this is especially troubling given the laws explicit operations against federal interference including how states can their school performance and identify school for support. states grappled with the rigid accountable is system imposed by washington. the every student succeeds act turns the page on the failed approach and restored these decisions back to state and local leaders. i urge you to adopt a final proposal that fully reflects the letter and spirit of the law. we are raising these concerns because it's important for the laws written by congress to be faithfully executed. just as important we are raising these concerns because we want to ensure every child has the best chance to receive a quality education. we cannot go back to the days when the federal government international education policy. it didn't work then and it will not work no. the department refused to follow the letter and intent of the law, you will prevent state

leaders from doing what's right for the school district you would deny superintendents the ability to manage schools in the way that meets the needs of their local communities. you will make it harder for teachers to serve the best interests of the students in the classroom. later we will hear from these individuals because they represent the people we want to empower. every child in every school deserves an excellent education, and don't want to achieve a ghost restore state and local control. that's what the every student succeeds act is intended to do, and we will use every tool at our disposal to ensure the letter and intent of the law are followed. .. the department 0s efforts to

provide states and school district with the clarity and guidance necessary to ensure effective implementation of the every student succeeds act. i'm proud of our collective efforts to draft a strong bipartisan law that was worthy of the president's signature. doing so was no small feat, however passing legislation is only one step of many. fulfilling the promise of the "every time student succeeds act," successful implementation that honors congress' long standing intent of the i'd indication ability, to support and promote -- promote and protect at all levels of government the right to educational opportunity for every child, regardless of race, language status or disability. while it returns decisionmaking to state and local level it's not a blank check. it includes that states and school stricts are required to take action when students aren't

learning. states and stricts decide which -- takeing some action is not negotiable. a framework is necessary to make sure states and school districts are getting the job done and taking action in each and every school required by law. the regulations empower states and local districts to fully comply with the federal laws. so getting this right is hard work, and the federal government has an important role to play. i want to thank the department of education under the leadership of then-acting secretary king, for moving so quickly to provide feedback from and provide necessary clarity to practitioners, parents and community members through the proposed regulations. also want to commend the secretary and his staff for their transparency and continued collaboration with members of the committee, and our staffs throughout the process. the department has demonstrated

commitment to fulfilling its regulatory responsibilities critical to helping states and school districts move forward expeditiously. from this point there's considerable agreement. some state and local stakeholder groups originally urged there be no regulatory framework, those very same groups in combination with others on the negotiated rulemaking panel, reached an agreement on the proposeed assessment text. i want to thank members of the panel, including the department, for working and making compromises to reach consensus on proposed regulations for some of the most contentious and challenging issues in the entire law. their consensus serve as a powerful affirmation 0 the need for clarity and direction that the regulations provide. in addition the regulatory -- in addition to the negotiated rulemaking process, the department recently released its proposed regulatory text for accountability, intervention, data reporting and consolidated

state plan development for public comment itch want to thank the secretary for moving to quickly. any individuals and groups requested additional regulatory clarity on these important issues and the department heeded those requests, as has been -- as the department has done in the past, i'm sure the robust dialogue that all stakeholders, club congress, will inform revisions and improvements in the proposed -- in the proposal during the 60-day comment period which closes august 1st. i look forward to hearing from today's experts and specifics of the department's proposal, just as the federal government works to meaningfully engage the diverse stakeholders to effectively implement the new law, local leaders must use the clarity provided by fed regulations to work on the development of new plans and the implementation moves forward. the upcoming election will usher in a new administration less

than six months before the transition secretary king's time at the department is winding down, and it is -- with this upcoming change in leadership, states and school districts indiana the consistency and dependability provided by regulations, election year or not. look forward to hearing from the secretary about his efforts to put in place a meaningful regulatory framework that empowers states and districts to fulfill congressional intent and improve educational equity beyond the current administration. thank you can mr. chairman. yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. members will be permitted to submit written statements and without objection the hearing record will remain open for 14 days to allow material to be submitted to the record. now my pleasure to introduce our distinguish it witness, secretary, you're a whole panel.

we're glad to have you here. the last time you were here, you were the acting secretary so congratulations on becoming the official secretary of the department of education. we're delighted you're here. i'm going to ask you now raise your right hand and do solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth. let the record reflect dr. king appearinged affirmatively. before i recognize you, me just remind you of the lighting system. it will apply rigorously to my colleagues, not so much to you. i will turn the five-minute clock on. please give your testimony as you see fit. been a long time since i gaveled down a cabinet secretary for speaking too long but if you would try to wrap up in a rome time because we're getting actually surprising number of members to show up considering

that the house adjourned and i'm sure there was a race to the airport sometime early this morning. i want to make sure all of my colleagues have a chance to engage in the conversation. >> mr. secretary. >> thank you very in. thank you chairman and ranking members and members of the committee. appreciate the invitation to come back for this committee and testify today regarding how the department of education is moving forward with the implement addition of the "every time student succeed act" which the president signed december, 20 15 i'm gratele that thank to the leadership of the -- congress acted last year to reauthorize this critical piece of legislation. over the past seven and a half years, thanks to hard working educators are supported by families, schools and students have made tremendous strides. the high school graduation rate is at a record high and schools in 49 states are helping students meet college and career ready standards and assessing their progress.

more states also are investing more money in helping make sure children are ready to citied -- succeed when they enter kindergarten and increasing spending over the past three years. and yet, so much work remains. too many students from every background still arrive at college needing remedial classes, and black and hispanic students continue to lag behind their white peers in achievement and graduate rates. the latest figures illustrate powerful and troubling we way this disparate and opportunities for a experience of different groups of studentsness our school. just a few texass. students with disabilities are more twice as likely to be suspended. school hits high concentrations of black and latino students are less likely to offer advanced courses such as calculus and physic. weapon out of every five high school students are english language learners are chronically absent.

the very children of the elementary and education act of 1965, amendment, was designed to protect and serve. the good news is that it provides local communities and states with a pathway toward equity and excellent for all students as wells tools that help them get there using the greater flexibility, states can go beyond test scores in mathematic and english language attar biz aide e adding their open indicators of progress to ensure a well-rounded education. well under that literacy are niece for success in life but not sufficient. a well-rounded education helps our children make critical connections among what they're learning at school, their curiosities and passions and stills they need to become sophisticated thinkers and leaders who will solve the most pressing challenges facing our communities, our country and our world. understanding that this work requires all of us working

together, states of expected to involve local educators, parents, civil rights groups, business leaders, tribal official and other stakeholders in choosing other indicators of quality, such as decrease rob an stenee rhythm and also students taking advances classes and provides additional resources for traditionally underserved students such as students of color, to students from low income family, students with disables, nate it american, foster and homeless youth, and migrant farm worker children. where groups of students are struggling and high school with low graduation rate about the flexibility of the law allows them to tailor the interventions to schools specific needs. as with all legislation the quality of implementation is critical to success. let me allow you to give you progress. the first thing we did was

listen. we cop vaccines over 200 meetings with stakeholders across the country, including dozens of meetings with educators and school leaders in rural, urban and suburban communities across the country. we posted a notice seeking public comment on areas areas ad regulation, and requested feedback on areas in need of guidance. we received hundreds of comments. we prioritize accountability, state plans, and -- now considering how best to address the feedback we received on the latter as we develop our policy. last month we issued or notice of proposed rulemaking and

accountability, published in the federal registrar on may 31st 31st for a 60 day public comment period. we encourage comments. consistent with the strong civil rights legacy of the law the proposed regulations ensure a focus on all students, including underserved sub groups of students and accountability for decision and ensure meaningful action is taken with stakeholders playing an important partner process and assure that students and families have an accurate picture of student's academic performance in april i announced the department would issue nonregulatory guidelines in key areas. stuns in foster care, homeless students and english learners. these are raised frequently as areas for stakeholder outreach. this morning we released guidance on ensuring educational stability for children in foster care, including protections for youth largely bulls because of

their mow pebble lag behind their peers academically. our guidance clarifies the new statutory requirements regarding children of foster care, promotes greater collaboration between state educationol agencies, local educational agencies and child welfare agencies, highlight promising examples to help guide implementation. this plan to issue guidance to support homeless students and inning lush learners at the end of summer. the department is working on guide against as districts implement tight 28, title 4, and the provisions around early learning the aim with these guidance documents will be to high light examples and best practice to make use of new funding opportunities in the law. as i noted we have made incredible process as a nation but there's more to be done. it's a bipartisan achievement that provides the statutory foundation to close our remaining gap and -- i'm pleased

to hear feedback from the committee tied and look forward to working with all of union sure high quality empolicemen indication of this -- implementation of this law, and guaranteeing a quality education for every child. thank you. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i'll be happy to start the feedback now. partially quoted some of your remarks from february in my opening statement. that quote came in response to my request that you commit to regulating in a way consistent with the statute. you said in full, quote, you can trust we will abide by the her letter of the law as we move forward to do regulations, provide guidance and technical assistance to the states and districts our and our intent is to work with you and gather input from educators and parents as we move forward. close quote. i'm concerned your proposals are not fully consistent with that commitment.

the questions i and other members have will reflect those concerns. i want to start by asking you about the supplement proposal you discussed in your opening remarks. as you know, we asked the congressional research service to review the proposal, and they agreed with us that your proposal, if it were promulgated would likely be illegal. they said, and i quote, based on the plain language, the above provisions in conjunction with legislative history and the statutory scheme as wheel, it therefore seems unlikely that congress intended such a 1118b thundershower the department to establish regulation that would required title 18 per pupil expend did tours versus knopp title 1a schools. close quote. i want you to respond specifically to those conclusions. the plain language of the section goss -- notes appear to

require-equalized spending. can you explain how plain reading of section 1118b would require the result you have proposed. >> the historical cop text for supplement is important. that language was originally added to the law after an naacp report that showed that the federal dollars were being used to back phil state and local responsibilities to high-needs schools, particular he those serve students of color. that is the history of that language. the language clearly must mean federal dollars are intended to be supplemental, not to backfill state and local responsibilities. we know that there are districts where 25% to 30% more than is being spent in schools serving affluent students that in schools a few blocks away searching lower income students as clearly inconsistent, the

very words, the supplement, not supplant. the proposal speaks to ensure we enforce the law is a wherein, that the funds are truly supplemental. however we received feedback in the process, adjusted the proposal throughout the negotiating rulemaking process, have continued to receive feedback and input from stakeholders since the completion of the negotiated rulemaking session, and look forward to moving forward in a way that is responsive to the feedback received. >> i thank you for the response. however, the point i'm trying to get at is that the statute, the plain language of the statute is very, very clear and doesn't say that the secretary is allowed to decide on his own what the intent of the history of this was. the language is very, very clear and that's what the congressional research service said.

second, want to ask one straightforward question about your accountability proposal. looking at it in totality, my concern is you're deliberately attempting to increase the number of schools identified for intervention beyond what was intendses the the statute. five years from enough what number of percentage of schools nationwide do you anticipate will be identified for come presentsive and target -- comprehensive and targeted support as a result of this proposal. >> the proposal seeks to ensure that states have the opportunity to broaden their definition of educational ex-lens, introduce additional indicators of performance beyond english and math performance and graduation rates. also creates the opportunity for states to set goals and targets for performance and it importantly requires that states and districts intervene when schools are at the bottom five percent of performance, when schools are struggling with particular subgroup performance,

and when schools have low graduation rates year after year. the number of schools that will be identified will depend on how states use that flexibility, but clearly a priority in the law was to ensure that states act meaningfully in schools that are struggling or where there achievement gaps theft what the -- that's what the regulations require. >> as you point out you don't know and that's not -- how many schools fall into that category. the department is doing some analysis of this also it goes forward. and if that's so, would you please commit to providing that analysis to us so we can see how this is going to unfold. right now, -- we're early here and i'm glad you're here so we can get at this -- looks like

there's an attempt here continue crease the number of schools identified for intervention so we want to look at that analysis. not -- we need to see that number go up. we wrote the language very specifically so i've asked and you answered you will give us that analysis what we go forward. let me yield for questions to mr. scott. >> thank you, mr. chairman. before i begin i'd like to submit for the record documents, one statement released yesterday by 31 civil rights groups calling for stronger accountability regulations and another letter urging the secretary and administration to fill its regulatory obligation and protect the civil rights of all students, including that supplement not supplant -- >> without objection. >> thank you. and secretary, when you proposed regulations as a comment period, what is the purpose of the comment period and what happens

after the comment period? >> that purpose is to gather input from stakeholders. we want to hear from educators, paramountses, civil rights organizations, tribal leaders, community-based organizations working with young people, particularly young people most at risk, and we'll gather that input and input from congress. our ultimate regulations will reflect our attempt to respond to the input we have received. >> thank you. you mentioned supplemental, not supplant. the language in the brown v. board of education case that said that the opportunity of education is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms. if a locality is chronically underfunding certain schools, is there not an obligation to come up with some appropriate equitable funding outside of the essa?

>> absolutely. >> then supplement, not supplant, mean you have to supplement over what your legal obligation is. that's right? >> that's right. >> can you say a word about the -- how you identify -- you you make sure that students receive the support they need in light of the fact that some schools look like they're doing okay but subgroups are not performing. >> we have been careful in regulations to try to ensure that schools do not fall through the cracks so students don't fall through the cracks. regulations give the states opportunity to set meaningful goals and target that requires them to intervene where schools north making progress for their subgroups. so, we will be vigilant in ensuring that states respond,

and states have to intervene where subgroupers struggling, where the schools are in the bottom five percent of performance or low graduation rates and if their interventions do not meaningfully improve student performance they need to intensify the interventions using evidence of effectiveness. >> you mentioned the bottom five percent. there's some suggestion that the data collected will not allow you to rank schools. if you can't rank schools how do you ascertain bottom five percent? >> that's an excellent question. one of the ropes the regulation require a rating but how states approach that rate could go vary. some states may use a new anywhere cal index, some may use other methodology, some states may use categorical labels for different sets of schools, but the law does require that states intervene in that bottom five percent of schools and will need

to have some rating to get to the bottom five percent. >> the gao released a study that was requested, along with former ranking member george miller and the judiciary committee, ranking member john conyers, on segregation in public schools, k through 12. the gao report found that actually increased in racial and socioeconomic segregation, and that it is getting worse. what -- i've asked for hearings and hopefully one day we'll have hearings on that. what can essa do to reduce racial and socioeconomic segregation in our public schools. >> deeply concerned about the lack of progress since brown vs. board of education and places around the country where we see increased isolation. an opportunity as states

consider their flexibility to intervene? struggling schools, to think about how they would create a strategy that would promote school diversity. hey made school diversity a priority in our competitive grant programs. the president, as you know, has proposed in the 2017 budget an initiative called "stronger together" that centurymer any and congresswoman -- you're helping to us advance that would allow to us direct resources to support voluntary locally led efforts to increase school diversity. we also are using the magnet schools program, to support local efforts to increase school diversity but we know for our low-income students, they do better in schools that are socioeconomically diverse. we know we want to prepare all of our young people for success in a diverse society. all kids benefit from diverse schools. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, gentleman, dr. fox. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

secretary king, welcome to the committee. i'd like to return to the supplement, not supplant, conversation. in 2011 the department issued a policy brief and report analyzing the compliance and the comparability requirement for per-pupil for schools analogous to the department's draft regulations, assuming you have more recent data, could you please provide us the estimated cost in state and local dollars of compliance to proposals put forth by the department during negotiate it rulemaking. >> i would make a distinction in the -- the question was framed between comparability and supplement, not supplant come operability -- state and local funding if the proposal that was

discussed, negotiate it rulemaking and adjusted throughout the negotiated rulemaking, would require states to comply with the supplement -- districts to comply with supplement not supplant provision of the law. the propose ticket use would be determined by the districts and so there is not a single number that can be estimated today for that proposal, but ailes say the proposal is dorked throughout the negotiated rulemaking and we'll continue to adjust that proposal based on input and feedback we receive. >> how can the department put forward a regulatory proposal without understanding the financial impact and how can the congress and the public be expected to evaluate its wisdom without such information? >> the requirement in the statute is that the federal dollars be used in a way that is supplemental. in fact, the very language, supplement not supplant, is intended to separate the issue of the use of federal funds from

the issue of it and local funds. -- state and local funds should be ol' located in a way that is equitable and the federal funds should be supplemental. >> the center for american progress report last year the nationwide compliance costs for proposals similar to yours would be be 8.5 bill. is that a reasonable estimate? >> again, the design of the proposal was to implement the requirement in the statute that the federal dollars be used in a way that is supplemental. the districts have a responsibility to ensure that they are not using those federal dollars to back -- fill state and local funds, to the extend that districts are today using federal dollars to back-fill state and local funds has not -- a very -- supplement not supplant. >> let me now focus on how school districts would comply with your proposal.

the department's 2011 report indicates some of the nation res largest school districts that have to increase spending by anywhere from less than one percent to as much as 20%. please tell the committee specifically how a school district unable continue crease spend big these amounts could commie with your proposal. >> the frame of of the question suggests that districted today are using the federal dollars in a way that back-fills local and state responsibilities. the requirement would be for districts to ensure that they're not doing that. that the state and local funds are allocated in a reasonable fashion and allows the federal dollars to be used to indeed supplement. to the extent that a district is spending 25 to 30% more in a school serving affluent kids than in a school serving high needs kids ten blocks away, that can't possibly be consistent with the very words, supplement,

not supplant. the adjustment they will need to make is one that is required with the statute. >> well, if school districts are forced to change teacher hiring policies and somehow find the legal and contractual authority to do so, in order to comply with the proposal, school districts, rather than school principals will assume more authority for hiring decisions in local schools. tell us how this would benefit low income students when we know that effective principals with greater staffing autonomy can be one of the most effective ways to increase student outcome inside. >> if today districts are using the federal dollars in a way that is not supplemental and they need to correct that, they can do that a number of ways. they could create incentives for veteran, high he effective teaches to go to schools. they could invest in pre-k programs in a high-needs school. they could ensure the high-needs

school has access to counselors or offers advanced course work. the reassignment of teacher ises not a requirement of the proposal. the general matter, i don't think anyone supports forced transfers of teachers. that's not required by the proposal. it's required that federal dollars are used at supplement. >> miss davis is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman good to see you, mr. secretary. thank you for joining us, we're probably later than you did. i wanted to follow up with ranking member -- ranking chairman scott's question, and just about the end size, the number of student we group and try to evaluate whether or not they're being properly served, and i think that there are some concerns that as students

perhaps, especially special education students, for example, might not be really properly seen within an accountability system. could you comment on that and -- for example, if a number fell to 28, 29, for a group, what would that it mean? >> we're very concerned about the issue of end side. walt we propose is that states would set their end size they would need to provide justification to the peer review process if they've set an end size about 30. the reason we use that based on research evidence on how we ensure that we capture subgroups as well as possible. asked that a study that showed if you use an end size of 40 or more you would only get to 32% of students with disability but you use an end suze of 30 you get to 79%. so we askedle for a justification if they want to go

above 30. we have heard feedback there are stakeholder groups who are interested in acquiring a justification at a lower size. we worry about subgroups getting missed, and schools where a particular subgroup of students doesn't get served -- the adequate services to make academic progress, that's never identified. the important element of the law is requiring subgroups data and we want to make sure that enforced while preserving for state the flexibility to adjust. >> exactly. we know it's key. do you -- in looking back at the way this was done previously, and states moving forward, are you confident that you are going to be able to have this be a more universal standard or in fact sounds like there is quite a bit of leeway perhaps for some groups.

i'm just -- just wanted to throw that out there because i know that it is a concern, and be very important not have that slipping. >> yes. a very fair concern. the vast major majority of the states today are at 30 or lower, and we think the peer review process will provide an important check on the end size states choose. >> thank you. want to go to the issue of teacher evaluations because we know that in the ssa it's quite clear that this is really up to local school districts, and yet i wanted to talk about the language a little bit because clearly, in this legislation, we want states and we certainly want school districts to do the very belles they can in developing a program that engages teachers in the process and in addition helps them be better. helps them do what they really

want to do, and have it be meaningful, and that's where many stricts and states did not have process that would do that. so, where is the federal role on that now and what is -- certainly within the purview of the ssa. >> we think it's important that every student succeeds act preserves the language on equitable distribution of quality teacherred from "no child left behind" so we have been working with states on the elk witness plans for states are working on initiatives to ensure their teachers are well-prepared, they that have a die voice supply of teachers and they are getting teachers to schools, state initiative focused on rural schools and the necessary teachers of english language learnersers and we thik the equity plans are important but we propose in the regulations that allow for commentisms that states will adjust and update those equity

plans based on the new language that appears in the "every time student succeeds act" and we want to make sure low income students, students of color, english learners are not pour proportionately taught from teachers teaching out of field. that's an important principle. >> i think i'm as equally concerned about how that sharing of information. we know we have peer evaluation systems that work very well also. it may require more substitute time but i just wanted to mention that, and go ahead and -- >> the gentle lady's time has expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman and congratulations, dr. king, on your -- just a couple comments about back -- fill. when i was mayor, once with raised education spending we could never go back. so there was no back-filling at all. anything that came in was additional to what -- in the

state of tennessee and i have for the first time since i've been to a congressman seven and a half years it's fun to walk into an elementary school and see smiling teacher and smiling administer years. they like the bill and i it's the implementation of it. last night we voted on a thousand page rule to define one word. we don't need that weight on these folks and distance learning where we are, the department of education is providing grants for the foundation where i live has done a great job of getting distance learning. i want to revisit a conversation we had in february about the weights states applied to their accountability systems. you said, and i quote, think we have an opportunity where the states can broad 'howl they die find an excellent education to make their definition more well-rounded than the narrow focus on english and math

assessments during the child child child era, quote closed. i was pleased your proposal did not offer a range of weights but i'm concerned get them players, the way -- can you point to me the statutory language that supports your proposal have limitations in you proposal fifth with your commitment to allow states to broad 'their definition for success. >> we carefully consistent with the statute do not weight personals for different indicators. the statute does require substantial weight for the academic indicators, and that the academic indicators are of much greater weight than the other indicators so we built into the regulation text that will be implemented threw the peer review process to ensure that states are acting in ways consistent with the statutory

language around substantial weight and much greater weight. but we do think there's tremendous flexibility for states to think through what additional indicators they will use to supplement english and math and graduation rates and opportunity for states to look at things like whether or not they're providing access to advanced coursework, the distance learning effort, whether whether it's equitable for various subgroups of students. >> with agree that the local controls is essential. accountability is essential. and -- mr. secretary, the statute requires states to include in their accountability systems at least one school quality or school success. this is to ensure the state accountability systems taking into consideration more than just test scores in determining school performance.

the statute includes a few broad parameters but your proposal requires that this additional indicator be supported by research that performance or progress on such indicators is likely to increase student achievement or graduation rate. can you provide the statutory justification for adding this additional requirement. >> this is a really about the state's plan and showing that as states do this work of identifying these other indicators that the indicators are enacted to students long-term success. which is the goal of these additional indicators being a part of the accountability system, and as the state peers and experts on the peer review panels review the state plans, we think it's important for them to look at the indicators in that context. one quick example. in the crdc data i just described, we found that nationally, 13% of students are chronically absent. 13% of students are missing more than 15 days of school each

year. we know that chronic absenteeism is closely connected to student's progress from grade to grade and their likelihood of graduation. a good example of an indicator a state might consider. obviously it's up to states to decide what those would be but that's a good example where there is very strong evidence based on the association between that indicator and long-term success. >> just one last comment. we have a great opportunity to put the fun back into the education again. the teachers were just absolutely -- you go into -- i would go into a group of oidioid indicators and ask how many would do this job again and the majority would not and that's not good i think this gives us an opportunity to put that fun back in education, and i hope we don't weight it down too much. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. ms. adams. >> mr. chairman, and thank you, ranking member scott and secretary king, thank you for

joining the committee again and congratulations. i am very proud of the work that was done to get the "every time student succeed act" passed into law. the reauthorization of the elementary and secondary education act was long overdue and we owedded it to at the stunts to update the, and now when we work toward implementing the act it's appropriate for members of congress to monitor progress, but i'm absolutely opposed to efforts to undermine the department of education in the spirit of the law. we had our chance to write the law, and now we should let the process move forward. additionally, the federal government has an appropriate role in education policy, and i believe that the department will move it forward to fully realize it. in states like my state, north carolina, federal policies are essential to protect our students from a number of state policies that in my opinion, are

ruining the state that has once been a national leader in education. since republicans took over the general assembly we have passed a number of bills and i was there during the time that in my opinion, will dismantle public education and that's some of what i have seen. we need to value our educators more and we have some question in north carolina about whether or not we do that. we say unless in the national average and we're ranking as one of the worst states per pupil spending, and so provisions like supplement, not supplant, are really imperative. so, without it i'm sure that north carolina might make even deeper cuts to education and we're very concerned about that. if you can just expand at more on the importance of federal funds being used to supplement instead of supplant state funds i would appreciate that. >> thank you. at the end of the day, this is a question of ensuring that all

students have access to quality education. and we know that in places where there is proportionate spending on affluent students and less spend only high needs students it translates into a real difference in student's experience in school for example in the crdc data, we saw that there are 1.6 million constitute students who go to a school that has school police officer but no school counselor. if you have no school counselor in your school, how are you going to support students through emotional needs, ensure students have access to good post secondary planning? we found that in many of the schools that served the largest numbers of african-american and latino students you can't even take calculus or physics. how are we going tone sure diversity in the stem fields and stupids have an equitable shot at stem career is if their schools don't offer those class

classes in so money isn't everything but school with inadequate resource the lack of funding translates into lack of educational equality. >> thank you. so, often times students attending title 1 schools are students of color, these same students make up consistently underperforming subgroups, and so having said that, do you truly believe that allowing states to choose how to determine the success of groups actually results in the improvement of subgroup outcomes? >> i think we really got to be vigilant in the peer review process and make sure that states connect the meaningful goals and targets for subgroups and the regulations. we try to set guardrails around the process but peer review of the state plans will be critical and victim lance on the part of the except on the part of congress to make sure that

states are attentive to the needs of subgroups and where subground groups are struggling they meaningfully intervene. state some states that have long ignored the night odd students and before "no child left behind" didn't even count their english learners. so we have to be vinal plant. we think we have -- vigilant but we are interested in feedback. >> thinking about the same subgroup of students, how will we hold schools accountable for improved outcomes. >> we think that the ratings are critical for transparency for parents, teachers and communities. which schoolers struggling and need that additional support, and also which schools can be models for other schools to replicate they're best practices. we also require transparent reporting on each of the indicators because we think it's important to have that rating

and also have good information at the school level and also the subgroup level in all indicators. >> thank you, mr. chairman i yield back. >> gentle lady yields back. mr. guthrie. >> the, mr. secretary. i agree that we write the law and you implement the law, however it's our responsibility, not just the write the law and let got, is to have oversight to make sure you're complying with the intent and the language of the law. so a couple of things. one, today my commissioner from kentucky is going to be here to speak to us, and one of the thing he has concerns with, and others have concerns with, is about thed and tight -- expedited timeline. the "no child left behind's" accountability provisions end august 1st of this year. then the statute says that new accountability systems will begin with the 2017-2018 academic year, and it's clear that congress intended for 2016-2017 to be a transition year to allow states to develop their new accountability systems, yet you proposal requires accountability systems

to be droved and implemented at 2016-2017, this academic year. and i asked you about this transition when you were before news february, and you answered that, and i quote, as we move into the 2017-2018 school year, states will be well-positioned to move forward on their new plans, close quote, and i enter it your answer as meaning you understood congressional intent that accountability systems become active at the beginning of the school year, and the initial fight of schools would come bee end of the school year based on the new systemsment unfortunately, what you propose seemed to contradict the statute and will short-circuit the important process taking place at the state and local level. can you make a commitment to us to revise the proposal to align the requirement with congressional intent and ensure that parents and educationors have the opportunity to engage in the policymaking process. >> just to be clear. under the proposed rule out for comment, there's no state that

would need to have their accountability system in place prior to 2017-18. the question is, what will happen in 2017-18 and we are interested in feetback feed back on the timeline. we're egger, that's country is, to ensure that we move beyond just english and math test scores and graduation rates. we actually begin to use the other indicators. that's our opportunity to expand the definition of educational excellence and we'd like to move quickly to that expansion. i understand there are folks who would like to extend the focus just on those english and math test scores and graduation rates but we want to make sure we get to the broader definition. but we're interested in feedback on the timeline and will try to lisp carefully to the in -- listen carefully. >> my commissioner will be theirtive and i'm sure you'll

have people here to give feedback. one thing on the end size, i understand that there are information prescribed by threat needs to be provided. we want to make sure that groupers following and we understand the statistics and understand that, but the statute allows the states to pick that end size and as long as they meet the criteria you can't prescribe the end size? it's clear on that. we talked about -- we want -- i know you talked with one of my colleagued about the information you want. we want you to have that information because we voted to put into law that the country gets that information. we also voted to say we're going to let states determine what that end size is and if they don't do it correctiely you go back, and seems like you're prescribing the end sites of 30 instant front and i don't understand where the stat tower authority is. >> we're not requiring any specific end size. what we're asking is that when states submit their plan, if

they choose an end size above 30 they provide information which with respect to why they made that choice. the regulation preserves the right of states to set their end size. the peer review process cretes an opportunity for the plan to be reviewed, and i do think it will be important in materials of civil rights protection. for example if a state were to set irend sigh in a state that ensure students with disables would never be counted anywhere system that would be problematic, and i'm sure the peers in the peer review process will respond negatively to that. but in the regulations we don't set the end size. if misread that. 30 bass the default. seemed like the states were able to -- you're right, if states had an end size that didn't commie with the rest of law, we want that information as well. that's why we vote to support the law.

i only have ten seconds left so i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. did you want to ask a question? issue. >> host: yes. >> you're like niecessed for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman. welcome to the committee, secretary king. wanted -- to follow up on comments who said they perceived the role different in visiting with schools and teachers, educators, knowing that the changes were made and every student succeeds act they were needing. so thank you for the, who you're doing and along with the department to implement the every student seeds act and support states redefining their assessment and accountability systems to meet their unique states. thank you your leapeddership -- leadership. i forward the need to prevent a gap in meaningful intervention for students and i'm concerned that asking states to identify a comprehensive and additional

targeted support in the 2017-2018 school year could discourage states from being innovative. i know the department will work with states to move their accountability systems and add indicators as data becomes available, a process that could take several years. nonetheless, asking states to implement accountability systems in time for the 2017-18 school year seems to hamper. can you discuss the districts' alternative, give states the time to put in comprehensive accountable systems. >> one important point about the proposed regulations. states can use the 17-18 year as a planning year for those schools that are requiring comprehensive intervention, but i think ultimately, we're interested in feedback on the timeline question.

we, like many educators and schools, have a sense of-under general si about broadening -- urgency about broadening the indicators for accountability and that states are prepared to move to address chronic absenteeism and states try to reduce this proportionate suspension for students of color. itself states are in a position where they want to introduce those indicator we road like to see them so they move beyond english and math scores and graduation rated. we're interested in feedback and want to work with states and districts to think through the best timeline. >> thank you. i'm glad that the department's proposed regulations for accountability would direct schools identified for targeted support, evaluate resource it but the proposed rule appears to focus on two examples of discrepancies in resources. considering these inequities

it's important, but i wonder whether states and districts would not consider other important inequities, for example, as to the advanced course work, technology, arts music, all the department encourages states and districts to identify a broad array of resources. >> we try in the regulation to balance wanting to make sure that states do the things they must and then also offering additional options. there's may language about things around advance course work and preschool which we think is a significant equity issue. there's places where we're open for feedback. always trying to strike the right balance around state and local flexibility and still transparency around resource equity and we're interested in feedback not only from states but from civil rights community and the advocacy organizations as we think through the right resource equity indicators. >> and that every student

succeeds act is clear that participation rates for statewide assessment needs to be a factor in accountability, and the department proposed rule, accountability systems would give the states more options for recording data. one option allows states to develop their own proposals for including participation rates in accountability estimates, how will your department assist them as they contemplate actions that are perhaps less punitive but no less effective in ensuring all students -- >> this issue of -- i bound up with how do we ensure strong parents' understanding of the role of assessment schools and i think there irclearly reasons that folks have seen over the last decade. ran increase in assessment at the federally requirement assetments by increased assessments in school and have driven a legitimate set of concerns. the administration proposed this plan and has put forward

guidance and helped to off ever places where folks can use federal resources to support reductions in assessment. that's the every student succeed act we want states and stricts to take advantage of so they right size that. where they can replay maybe low-level bubbles test with higher quality performance assessment. those kind of efforts we think will help ensure that states are able to comply with the laws that all students participate. >> as someone who has been talking about fewer, better assessments, look forward to continuing to work with you on that. i yield back my time. >> the lady yields bang. mr. burns. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, it's hard to remember all of us up here. i'm a former member of the alabama state board of education for eight years, all of my children within to the public schools in the state of alabama, all four of them tabledded a magnet school in the city of mobile, large, urban school

system. so i have a great deal of interest in this and high expectations for performance of our public schools with regard to every student. when you were here before the committee in february, asked about the phrase, the new law, quote, simply underperforming, whose responsibility isth it is to define the term and wrote a followup letter on march 1st 1st that you responded to on june 17th. three and a half months later. now, in your response, you pointed to the proposed rulemaking. you were here before you could not really answer my question, and after reading your proposal i think i understand why. when you were here before you said to me, quote, i am committed to working with this committee to ensure implement addition is consistent with the letter of the law. close quote.

i would say to you,mer secretary, committed to work with the committee, taking three and a half months to answer my letter ifs not consistent with that. the letter of the law says the meaning of, quote, consistently underproofing "is to be determined by the state. letter of the law also says that you are prohibited from prescribing, quote, the specific methodology used by states to meaningfully differentiate or identify schools under this part, close quote. now, taken together, the law prohibits you from constraining state flexibility around the definition of, quote, consistently underperforming, yet your wrote pose sal says exactly that. -- your proposal says exactly that. so help me. why violating the statute in your proposed rulemaking and give a definition when the every student succeeds act prohibits

you from doing so and requires you to leave that touch the states in why did you do that? >> to be clear, in our regulation, consistently underperforming is defined by the states using the goals that they state would set. our role is to try to gather feedback and input, which we did, and based on that input we put forward a proposed rule out our nor comment. we were careful to comply with the letter of the law and consistently justified performing its let to the states to define their own goals. >> ski you to who back and look at your approval because i think it does proscribe, and i think you're setting yourself and the department up for a lawsuit you'll lute. block... lose. don't know who will file it but somebody will. talk about legislative intent i am giving you legislative intent right now.

look at your rule, clearly violates the letter of the statute in prescribing. in any way you prescribed to the states to that determination, and look at the rule and a member of the committee, strong proponent of this law is telling you and if you do, and you are a smart man and a fair man. if you look at it fairly you can see you are in violation of the statute. i don't want you to be in violation of the statute and i don't think you want to be in violation of the statute but we have a consistent pattern in this administration putting out regulations after being warned you are in violation of statute as written by congress. somebody has to file a lawsuit. here is what happens when a lawsuit is filed.

you spend a lot of resources, spend a lot of resources and every penny of those resources didn't go to educating a child. you want every process to educate children, somebody deep in the bowels of your department. taking you in a direction the statute prohibits you from going. go back and look at your rule. >> appreciate the feedback. i want to wonderscore states will set the goals and targets, consistently underperforming will be made. >> we are going to hold you to that and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. mister rokita. >> i want to continue this line

of questioning regarding different rules. you were called under the old rules that we differentiate between targeted schools and school i'd schools, they have three specific tests, less than 40% low income. more than 40%, more than 40% rules. you acknowledge don't you that student succeeds act. distributing state and local funds without regard of the title of funds. we got rid of the targeted test and schoolwide test for all of us and asked. >> federal dollars are supplemented.

the schoolwide test applied for all, your rule has a methodology applied to it, title i school passes as much funding, received by the district's non-title i schools. we put a prohibition in the new law that we are not to apply methodology but you do. how are you not in conflict with legislative intent similar to what mister byrne pointed the out? >> a proposed rule in negotiated rulemaking given in the question of rulemaking the rule was adjusted and continue to receive input and feedback, without a rule out for public comment. we anticipate issuing a regulation on this but i want to be clear there is not currently a proposed rule.

>> they do realize you are in direct conflict. >> with respect to negotiated rulemaking we do not prescribe methodology, methodology is judiciary, with the approach. based on traditional assignment of staff model, budgeting, don't prescribed the methodology and what we are trying to do in the rule that was discussed in negotiated rulemaking, districts are indeed using federal dollars the way they are supplemental, state and local. >> the only requirement we have my the methodology and distribution, it would be fair and equitable and agnostic, title i status.

and legislative intent. >> federal history -- >> in the new law, it is quite clear at the notion federal dollars will be supplemental. >> the only requirement is we have to be agnostic to a school status. >> supplements rather than plans, local and state. >> defining what supplement means and the methodology, fair and equitable and taking schoolwide test and applying it to all of s and s and the only requirement is districts method for allocating state and local funds be agnostic as the school title i status. agreed? >> not if they are supplanting.

there are two things, the question of the district methodology which is up to the district, there is the question whether or not the federal dollars are being used in a way that is supplemental. that is the plain language. >> you may be using some comparability attempts backdoor to sns. >> it is focused on services, not supplanted, focusing on allocation of funds. >> i don't think so. the crs document on that, explains your supplement proposal is really a backdoor proposal to amend statute comparability and they walk through legislate deliberations on what became outside and they

said relevant vote did not alter the existing statutory language that prohibits use of salary differentials when determining expenditures for people from state and local funds and the proposed regulations on a period requiring lvas for actual teacher salaries despite the fact it did not address this manner and i have to yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. >> thank you for being here. discussions, question that is going on is important for us, northwest ordinance stated about education, morality being necessary to good government and happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. that is not in the u.s. constitution but is in the michigan constitution taking high priority for the necessity of having schools and education encouraged so people would be happy. productive.

our discussion today was really and intend to rule back the power, authority, direction, control of the federal government and to really give as we talked about in a bipartisan way the fun quotient back, exciting quotient back to educators in the classroom, school board members on the board, parents with dreams and aspirations for their kids, to know that education is a neat, beautiful, fun, productive priority in civilization. and the greatest control, teachers in the classroom, school boards, parents who love

their kids. state boards of education. as we are discussing this it is becoming evident to me this is creative tension we have when we have a powerful entity, the us department of education, wants to do right for the kids in schools, philosophical position to push and a pattern over the years of whether you believe it or not we want to make sure what we want to happen in our schools happens, that is human and the reason for our discussion today

is priority goes to the states and that is what our law is. along with that that will be a creative tension we have and continue to have and hope we make it productive. to continue on some of the questions again to develop it further, mister secretary, the statute requires states to assess 95% of students while protecting the right of parents opt out and granting states the sole discretion for determining how test participation requirements should be factored into the state accountability system. the statute explicitly prohibits you from prescribing how the state factors at least as i read it yet your proposal requires states to take at least one of four prescribed actions against schools, your proposal requires schools that mister requirement

to develop a plan to address the failure and require school districts with large numbers of such schools to also develop an improvement plan may be a laudable goal but the law is the law so let me ask you this question, can you provide specific statutory language that gives you this authority? >> as a former high school social studies teacher i appreciate quoting the northwest ordinance, doesn't happen often. >> i am a neanderthal. >> i appreciate it, i appreciate it. i strongly agree with your point on the importance of flexibility, the design of the intervention, and on the question of participation, what is your statutory authority? >> your framing of 23 seconds.

>> in the four options described in regulation, one of them is for the state to determine how it will approach the enforcement. and 95% accountability requirement in the statute and states choose the fourth option which is state determined and would go through peer review. we were careful as i indicated before to ensure that our regulations are the letter -- >> i still didn't -- i still didn't hear your specific -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> thank you, mister secretary, for being here. especially appreciate the department focus on english-language as a major priority for me and

reauthorization and made some comments. i want to ask about students in foster care. and in recent weeks and two specific questions. the first on the proposed regulation, second on the guidance issue this morning. the statute lays out a process for school district and child welfare agencies to develop an agreement for paying transportation costs for students in foster care remain in schools of origin. contrary to that language proposed regulations require school districts to pay for transportation costs with no mention of the process established in the statute. and proposing to require school districts to recover transportation costs. if you don't think the

department ignored the statutory language let us know how this provision complies with clear language in the statute and this is an issue with legislation, to have the flexibility to work this out with their own agencies, school district and child welfare agents. >> foster youth provisions are important, it is clear foster youth at risk and part of the reason they are at risk is they are moving between schools. evidence is clear that students are better served when they have educational stability or there have to be transitions that are smooth. the guidance, we not only describe our interpretation of the law, but also offer states that set up clear dispute or deflation processes. were guidance point is for

collaboration between the school district and child welfare agency to ensure they are evaluating messages to students and create a reasonable plan for transitions and transportation where necessary. the proposed rule, looking for comment and we expect to get it and guidance which we tried to do is point to what you are describing, need for child welfare agencies to work collaboratively. proposed rule offers more specificity to resolve those disputes and looking for feedback. >> you believe ultimately states do not have flexibility where child welfare agencies and school districts figure out among themselves how transportation costs will be addressed. >> if there is a dispute ultimately, how will we ensure

the student has educational stability. and we are looking for feedback and guidance as we tried to underscore the collaborative relationship and also describe examples of effective dispute processes in place around the country. >> i can encourage you to pay attention to the feedback in this period because it is pretty clear that all over this legislation we have been focusing on state flex ability, trusting states and local communities to make the best decisions for these kids. especially when it comes to kids in foster care which we all want to make sure we have access to quality education and give states the opportunity to figure out the solutions that work best for the kids in those states and

communities. thank you for your presence and time, i yelled back. >> the gentleman yields back, mister allen. >> good to have you here this morning. >> at or below the level of students and the bottom 5%, requiring schools to be identified for comprehensive support and failed to adequately improve a determined number of years. as has been mentioned several times, essa prohibits you from prescribing the methodology to identify schools yet your proposal requires the schools i just described to be identified within three years if they have not improved. how is this consistent with the

plain language of the statute which says the length of time is to be determined and the secretary is prohibited from describing identification methodology. >> we hear the question as whatever school is identified and some groups are not making progress so it is different from the original identification. states need to develop a process for how they will respond when schools are not making progress with those subgroups and the intention is states will intensify their state selected interventions based on evidence to ensure those subgroups improve their performance. >> again, the question was it looks like we have two methodologies here, the law versus your rule. i didn't quite understand

exactly, the states are responsible for dealing with this particular issue. but your rule applies that the federal government is responsible for this particular issue. there seems to be a conflict. >> don't think so. it requires states increase the intensity of the intervention when the intervention does not improve subgroup performance and the regulation, trying to force that requirements but these regulations are out for public comments. this is a place where we are interested in feedback from states and district and civil rights groups and others. >> that is important because congress writes the laws, as mentioned earlier, what amazed me in my short time here, where we have intend in a law that

somehow gets totally misinterpreted by the time it gets to one of the departments. it is great to have you here this morning and great to have this discussion and we definitely need to follow up on these conflicts with your staff and our staff to make sure we implement this law the way it was intended. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. mister courtney, you are recognized. >> thank you for being here. i applaud the chairman holding this hearing. looking back at the congress getting the essa done and signed into law, it will be one of the more unexpected, pleasant surprises in a good way in terms of the accomplishment here. my colleagues said the action has migrated to the state level

and there are working groups under the commissioner hard at work, trying to align state education policy with flexibility, with some guidance from the federal government. i want to let you know it is full speed ahead in terms of what is going on. the issue that is very important in the state of connecticut is as a result of desegregation lawsuits connecticut was aggressive in moving towards magnet schools as a solution to racial isolation in the city of hartford which i live 17 minutes away from on the highway, new york times reported there has been encouraging progress made in terms of the magnet school

model, went to one of the schools followed in the ship versus o'neill, a life-changing experience, not something her parents pushed her into, it found her on her own. i personally would have liked to see it be more aggressive to promote magnet schools particularly in the city of london which is going all magnet. transportation and other expenses, a bit of a challenge, i never talked about your perspective on that and ask you how you see that approach and the signals the legislation sent out to be supportive. >> i am pleased with adjustments that were made to the magnet schools program. that will help make it easier to

take a magnet school approach. i would love to see us go further which is why the president propose the stronger together initiative in the 2017 budget, supporting locally led voluntary efforts around school diversity. hartford magnet school program is a great national model folks should take a close look at. quality of the options to families that are diverse and the two way teacher of hartford approach that students are able to go from suburban community to urban schools and urban schools to suburban communities, very promising approach. looking at how we can use other grant programs to encourage voluntary locally led efforts and my hope is using school improvement flexibility they have to pursue school diversity strategy because we know they

can improve outcomes, graduation rates. >> the batting average for these new models is not just about racial composition of the student body, it is also about academic achievement. a number of magnet schools score higher than any, either public or private high schools and k-12, k-8 schools in the state of connecticut. i want to tell you a lot of us are rooting for the departments to continue that work in terms of promoting a real solution to future success of this country using the magnet school model and with that i yield back.

>> mister grothman. >> thank you for coming. when you were here in february i asked about teacher licensure and teacher evaluation. mentioned in student success act, we believe we prohibited you from any involvement in teacher evaluation. every time i asked you about it, can we be confident those days are gone? that is what the new statute said. we are very true to the law with teacher evaluation in state districts. and we come back with regulation, and and to identify the percentage of teachers for

the ineffective divination. this is completely contrary to what you told us in february not to mention contrary to what is in the statute. what is your statutory authority for this proposal and if there is no statutory proposal please explain how you expect the state to meet this requirement without establishing teacher evaluation system. >> the statute requires states to provide information on equitable access to quality teachers. we require and the regulation for states to define those as they comply with statutory requirements to report on disproportionate access to those quality teachers. they couldn't report if they didn't define those categories. >> you are going to assure us you have no concern about how quality teachers are defined? >> states are required to lower their definition and that will be a part of it.

>> what their metric is? >> the proposal that they will submit as part of the state plan is a peer review which is not the department but other states and experts who will engage in peer review of the state plan. >> the state of wisconsin has to worry be cause regardless of what they use for teacher evaluation that you will ever question them? >> if they were complying with statute, they weren't ensuring students have equitable access to quality teaching, yes, i would hope a teacher would ensure the law was enforced. >> you are dodging this a little bit. the question is the state of wisconsin says such and such is a quality teacher. are you ever going to question the definition of quality teacher defined by the state of wisconsin. >> they have a set of terms to define. for example if they have teachers who are teaching outside their license area.

is it possible in the future the department might find that a state is evading their response ability under the law to ensure access? that is possible. >> i wonder about it. more data than i can give constitutionally but nevertheless you do. maybe you know when i look at the problems in society including educational reform i blame a lot of it on the breakdown of the family. i just wondered, when you collect data on these students and data on race, do you collect data on family background of the kids and if not, why not? >> there may be a study in which those issues i looked at but i don't believe there are requirements for that. >> i am saying in your tenure as

secretary has there ever been a suggestion, maybe we should at least do a limited study, on the limited background of students and see if some family backgrounds are more conducive to educational achievement than others? >> maybe imf studies that address that. >> you have reams of data you are collecting. i was wondering whether you or anybody else in your department might be an interesting topic. >> i will look at whether there was a study on that subject and get that to you. >> okay. i will yield the remainder of my time. >> gentleman yields back. mister carter. >> thank you, mister secretary, mister king, we appreciate it very much. what i want to talk about the what the department of education has proposed as far as back end

checks for indicators for state accountability systems. the statute that was passed requires the states to establish the criteria that schools need to exit certain categories. nking member