>> can i read this language just to respond to mr. schnur? it says, if the state chooses to use a student -- use student growth as a measure of academic progress and to determine if students are on track to college and career readiness, a student performing below the on track level of performance for the student's grade level under subsection blah, blah, blah, on the academic assessment for the subject under sup text blah, blah, blah, is attaining a rate of academic growth in the subject that indicate that the student will be on track to college and career readiness in not more than a specified number of years and two, a student who is performing at or above the on track level performance for the student's grade level on the academic grade level for the subject is continuing to make academic growth. so for states that choose a growth model, we are addressing

i think what you raised. are you satisfied? >> i think that's good. my view is that having not federally prescribed but state some big goals about increasing percentage of kids meeting big goals is important but i know that's a longer conversation. but i think that's a great step in the right direction. >> thank you. >> roll call vote. >> we have a roll call vote that just started. senator murphy has been very patient. i knew it was going to be at 12:15. mr. merkley. >> thank you, mr. chair. thank you to all of you for bringing your expertise here to the capital. i'll follow up on the computerized adaptive testing. oregon was an early adopter of this. folk can't imagine any other way of doing it. if schools out there are still using paper tests that the results come back months later, that is crazy. if you're trying to have teachers be able to utilize the results in order to understand

how their students are progressing. and the cost of the technology has come down so much that i certainly would encourage folks to explore it. i wanted to note another issue, which is we're replacing the current requirements for adequate yearly progress for college and career ready standards, and the goal of developing statewide accountability systems in order to receive federal funding by 2014 and 2015. states vary in terms of the progress that they have made and will be making to develop this new accountable system based on college and career ready. so i thought superintendent luna perhaps from idaho's perspective and other people are welcome to chime in, could give us a sense

of how the states progressing in developing and adopting these new assessments or the process that's anticipated and the expected time line and kind of insights about the challenge that will occur in terms of this transition. >> mr. chairman, and senator, idaho along with oregon and a number of other states i believe there's almost 30 are part of the smarter balance consortium that is working to develop the adaptive computerized assessments that we're talking about. i believe that they will begin piloting them. two years. and then after the pilot begin to administer them. at the same time those's samts are going into place, we're going through the process of adopting the common core. so we have to go through the process of aligning our curriculum to the higher standard and now an assessment that measures to this higher standard and all of that as i said, in place to be piloted i

believe in 2014. and then the year after it becomes part of the accountability. it's the measure that we use in our states as part of our accountability system. >> so did you anticipate that the ayp will continue to be used between now and then when it's piloted in 2014, do we anticipate wide adoption the following year or two years later or --? >> mr. chairman and the senator, i think it's going to be up to the plan that the state an puts together. i believe if it's a state that's pursuing a waiver, that there's actually one year where everything kind of stays the same. and that is the transition year. i believe that that is 2013 and then there's the transition. but i think it has to do with -- it depends on the plan that the state puts together. >> do we have time for any other feedback on this question? >> thank you. >> did you have feedback? >> i wanted to address what

senator -- i'm sorry. i wanted to address what is over in franken said in regard to formative assessment. i think there is a lot of emphasis on formative assessment now. and it is being used and used for instruction but as far as the tests that we would ed use for data collection, and comparing students, whether we're comparing growth which is wa we hope to be able to do in the future is compare growth, we would have to have as i said, we would still have to have a testing window where testing is done within a particular time frame in order 0 use it for comparisons. >> mr. chairman, had i one more quick comment, and it was in response to senator paul's said currently we will have basically everyone that's frustrated with the current law but now we're going to just take wa we're frustrated with but only apply

it to 5% of our schools. under the new law, the 5% are not going to be held to the same frustrating parts of no child left behind today. we will use a growth model which we cannot use under the current no child left behind. it will be a growth model that we'll use to measure how those schools are improving. and then i think the most important part is now under the new law, there's flexibility. we receive federal funds right now where it's very prescriptive where the school may need to focus on a specific area, but the funding forces us to spend it elsewhere. now because of the flexibility in the law, we can take the federal dollars and combine them and focus on the area where we know that low 5% school needs assistance. so it is a different approach. i think it will be a far more successful approach. >> i'll entertain a couple more. when the second bell's rung, we've got to go. mr. schur and mr. henderson.

>> senator merkley, i think your quep is a really important one. i think there is a risk. there are many good elements in this bill. i have some significant reservations about the teacher evaluation and around the press for accountability and transparency. there is a risk without more steps being taken that you won't in this bill drive the crucial transpatterncy needed to look at performance across the whole system. in an effort to provide flexibility, i think your question got at the risk that we may not actually give the transparency at how well schools are doing to educate kids at all levels. i think flexibility is good but there are important thacan be a this legislative process. >> senator. >> >> mr. greer. i want to come back to this issue of comparability.

this is really a serious issue. i might suggest that the committee consider a detailed impact analysis from the general accountability office or the congressional research services on the impact that these changes before you move forward. the last thing i wanted to say is that we most of the really good charter networks in this country that are doing a great job are spending between $1,000 and $2,000 more per student in these low performing schools and are getting good results. this is in addition to the title 1 money. i want to come back again. i'm really concerned if we don't look at some type of set aside to provide some additional title one funding for these low performing schools, that we just aren't going to be willing to make the tough political changes that we need to make in giving them the amount of funding they need to do this work. >> i thought it was ringing a bell. we have a 4% set aside in this

bill just precisely for what you're saying. there's a 4% set aside foo for the bottom 5% schools? >> yes. >> okay, tank. >> you mr. henderson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. because this discussion is coming to a close, i just want to make a concluding observation if i might which is look, we began at the outset conceding that no child left behind is imperfecten and in need of reform. i think there are some who would argue, however, that the current draft bill represents a shall we say overreach on the part of the federal government by using its federal dollars of investment to try to guide state accountability. i got that. the truth is, however, that esea really establishes a floor, not a ceiling. i want accountability and that states are obviously free to exceed and create new standards that in, facts, hold all students accountable. my only point is this. look, i celebrate the fact that over the last 50 years, the country has changed significantly for the better and

become a more perfect union but i also recognize that americans often are ahistoric and fail to take into account the specific elements that led to the change that we support today. had the federal government not chosen to intervene, in state's activities in this area, we would not have had the improvement that we've seen. and those who seem to argue that states when left free of their own devices can achieve the kind of goals that we all seek need only look at the record that has been established over the past to recognize that the states themselves are not perfect. and that they have, in turn, improved their academic involvement because of the federal government. not in spite of it. and so i think in that sense, this does the discussion of government's role a disservice to the extent that we fail to recognize the contributions that the federal government has made in improving the quality of education for >>. >> well, thank you very much. thank you all very much. i thought this was a great two

hours. here's i guess as chair i get to have the last word. let me sum it up this way. the whole issue of elementary and secondary education is a complex issue. but we can't just throw up our hands and say because it's complex and there's all these moving parts, that we can't do anything and we walk away from it. what i've heard here is that there's a role to be played by the federal government, the state government and the local government. we just have to figure out what those roles are. and they may vary from time to time, depending upon circumstances. i will state that this bill that we have will not solve every problem in elementary and secondary education. mr. luna said when he talked about no child left behind, he said there's the good, bad and ugly. we've tried to get rid of the bad and the ugly and keep the good and try to expand on it somewhat. so yes, we've retreated in some areas, advanced in others.

every bill that passes a committee or a congress i can poke a hole in it. you know no, bill has everything everybody wants. i understand that. this bill is not mr. enzies bill and it ain't mine either, but it is ours. in that way, we make those kind of agreements. i think the central question is, is it better than the present bill. does it advance the causes of finding the proper balances between federal, state and local? and does it warrant general support? across a wide spectrum, knowing full well that will every here has something that probably they would like to change in that bill, including mr. enzie and me. but the question is, does it advance the cause.

of what we're trying to do and finding those proper roles and trying to provide a framework f every child in america to get a really good education so we have really good effective teachers, good leaders in schools, that we have comparability, that we even out these mr. seaton, i don't think you got my subtlety in this. savage inequalities still exist today. i'm in fairfax county. our schools have the best computers you can imagine. why don't your schools have those? there's inequality in zip codes. we have to figure out how we make sure that kids who happen to be born to -- in bad circumstances have a bad family circumstance, low income, impoverished area, maybe english language learns, maybe have a disability, maybe have a learning disability, how do you keep them progressing too? how do you reach down to that

child who has the least and make sure they get the benefit of our education system. that's what we're trying to do. imperfect as it is, that's what we're trying to do. i thank you all very much. it's been a great discussion. the committee will stand adjourned. >> got to go. vote. >> i'm keeping the record open for ten days. >> you the white house this week announced that ten states would be allowed to opt out of the "no child left behind" law. we talked to reporter fawn johnson about why account obama administration made the decision. >> fawn fawn johnson writes for national journal.

why did the administration give some states waivers on the "no child left behind" law? >> it's part of the administration's we can't wait campaign. it was something that they've been discussing for over a year. they originally called it a plan b for no child left behind. the idea was to give states some sort of out to a provision in the law that requires all students to be at grade level in reading and math by 2014. 2014 is coming can up fast. there are some schools that won't make that deadline and obama wanted to give those states some abilities to come up with other school reforms while congress works out whatever problems that they might be having in rewriting the law. >> they gave the waivers to ten states. is it likely other states will follow suit and ask for the waivers as well? >> yes. when the administration first announced the plan which was last september, they offered up what they would call an advance for states who are ready to go,

a quick approval process for them so that they could plan for their next couple of years budgets and other things they're doing for their schools. there's always an expectation there will be a second and possibly a third round. most of the states have actually expressed some interest just putting together their plans. there is a complex vetting process. the administration takes the state plans through before they grant the waivers. for example, new mexico was one of the states that orally applied early for a waiver. and administration officials say they're still working with that state to try and clarify some parts of the plan before they give new mexico a waiver. >> there's a rewrite under way on capitol hill, both the house and senate have versions. how are they different? >> in almost every way they're different. there are some similarities in the sense that i think in the senate and in the house, lawmakers are well we're that that 2014 deadline that i was talking about earlier and no child left behind does need to

be tweaked. the house has a whole series of bills that they're planning on putting together in one big authorization at some point later this year. the house's version is a lot more partisan. there are several pieces of it, crucial pieces of it that democrats really don't like. they return a lot of the power, the house returns a lot of power to the states and leaves almost nothing left with the federal government. which is going to be a little bit of a problem in the administration and in the senate. the senate has a full reauthorization bill that has passed committee. it's not clear when it will be on the floor. the chairman of the health education and labor and pensions committee tom harkin in the senate had said he didn't expect it to it be on the floor until the house is moving. they are. we'll see what happens with that. it also removes some of the benchmarks that have been most problematic under no child left behind but leaves a lot of the administrative procedures in

place. so republicans aren't too happy with the senate bill. >> new york mayor michael bloomberg said today he was displeased with the waivers and felt that the federal government's role was to set the bar, set a high bar in education. how in general has the reaction been to these waivers? this announcement this week. >> well, i think mayor bloomberg would be putting forth the point of view that probably more starkly than most advocates of education reform that the federal government should have a strong role. that's always been a bit of a sticking point in education because people expect that be states and local governments will be more closely tied to their schools. but so the most part, the waivers are considered by almost everyone on the spectrum of education to be something of a stopgap or a band-aid to overall rewriting of the elementary and secondary education act. they're very useful for states at the moment who will be facing some real punitive problems with

the current benchmarks under no child left behind. it gives them the ability to work on something while congress figures out what it's doing. it is not by any stretch a replacement for a new law. and so i think that when you see comments like that from mayor bloomberg or from other, it's just reflecting a frustration at the part that the administration can only go so far. they can't actually rewrite the law on their own. >> and an update from fawn johnson of national journal. national journal.com. thanks for joining us. >> it's a pleasure. >> when i first started the book, i also thought, this must be an american story. this is about a country that worships the religion of self-reliance and individualism, this is a legacy of thoreau and emerson. it turns out we're laggards when it comes to living alone. it's much more common in

scandinavian nations and even in japan. >> iraq clinen begg looks at the growing tend of american adults choosing to live alone and what that choosing to live alone and what that means for the country. also this weekend on book tv sunday at 3:00, the second cousin of former secretary of state condoleezza rice on starting dialogue between gang leaders and police. and george town university's bonnie morris, "revenge of the women's studies professor." book tv every weekend on c-span 2. just the way i'll remember, here is that wonderful moment when senator lott revealed his nostalgia for the state's rights segregationist south. take a look. >> when strom thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. we're proud of it. >> publisher josh marshall on

the internet and his website's emergence into the breaking news business. >> the media ecosystem is such a different world today than it was, it's hard to believe that's ten years ago. i think things like that happen all the time now. i mean, i know there's certainly many big stories that tpm has had over the last decade more and more. now we have an editorial staff of 20 people so we're breaking stories right and left. i think the thing is it's almost become -- it's almost become commonplace, and it's not nearly as surprising today as it was back then. >> more about tpm and josh marshall sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." >> shouldn't your president have the highest moral and ethical standards and be an example to our children and young people in this country? ask yourself that question,

please. shouldn't his life make him a role model for your future children? shouldn't anyone you elect to this office always keep his promises? >> as candidates campaign for president this year, we look back at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. go to our website, c-span.org/thecontenders to see video of the contenders who had a lasting impact on american politics. >> do they not have the right to protest and revolt against a government that they feel does not serve their interests. who appointed us to sacrifice the lives of young americans trying to weigh in on the side of a government that represents perhaps 15% of the people of lebanon and has little or no apparent support from the other 85%. >> c-span.org/thecontenders. at this house hearing on jobs and the economy, michigan's

republican governor rick snyder expressed support for obama administration efforts to help the auto industry. he was joined by connecticut's democratic governor dannel malloy. this is 2 1/2 hours. a quorum being present, the committee will be in order. good morning. i'd like to thank governors snyder and malloy for pa participating in today's hearing. we appreciate having you here with us. and i just talked to both of you before the hearing and thank you, i want to thank you again. it's always very special for us when we have leaders here who

can bring their experiences to us. a year ago the committee met to examine the state of the workforce. it was our first hearing of the 112th congress and reflected our commitment to make job creation in america competitiveness top priorities. much has happened since we met in january 2011. unemployment was 9.1%. nearly 14 million workers were unemployed. now 1 million fewer workers are unemployed. the number of long-term unemployed, out of work 27 weeks or more, has declined from 6.2 million to 5.6 million. these facts may demonstrate modest progress, but far too many americans continue to face significant hardship in this tough economy. the number of americans participating in the labor force is at its lowest level in 28 years. more than 8 million individuals are working part-time because full-time jobs are unavailable

and 1 million discouraged workers have abandoned their job search entirely. we've experienced the weakest recovery since the great depression. the recovery of the 1980s led to 18 straight months of growth greater than 5%. yet our own recovery over the last 2 1/2 years has averaged just 2.5%. the nation should be firing on all cylinders. yet our economy remains stuck in neutral. in many ways, the current administration has made matters worse by promoting the politics of fear and uncertainty, costly regulations have failed to enhance the welfare of workers, bureaucratic workers at the expense of workers and employees and politically-motivated decisions that destroyed tens of thousands of good-paying jobs are part of what governor mitch daniels described as a pro-poverty agenda. to help restore certainty and confidence, the house of representatives has approved

more than 30 bipartisan jobs proposals in the last 12 months. the bills touch upon virtually every part of the economy, from labor relations and energy security to tax relief and fiscal responsibility. no single proposal represents a silver bullet. no single proposal represents a silver bullet but each helps remove government barriers to economic growth and job creation. while more than 25 house-passed jobs bills face obstruction in the democrat-led senate, a number of our efforts have reached the president's desk. in january, i had the privilege of joining speaker boehner on a trip across latin america, including a stop in colombia to visit with its business leaders and elected officials. thanks to the bipartisan effort of this congress, working with the president, colombia will soon import duty free goods and products built by american workers. speaking of our trade agreements with colombia, panama and south

korea, american automakers, ranchers and manufacturers including many small businesses will be able to compete and win in new markets, closed quote, we need to build on the success and explore new opportunities to help workers thrive in the global economy. i'm hopeful job training reform is an area in which we can work together to strengthen the competitiveness of the workforce. for the nation's long-term unemployed, seven months without work can feel like a lifetime. effective job training support can help workers get back on their feet and back to work. the need for a leaner, more efficient workforce investment system has never been more urgent. i was pleased to hear the president call for reform in his state of the union address, and we stand ready to take action. already my colleagues have introduced three proposals that lay the foundation for 21st century job training system. a key component of our effort is the consolidation of dozens of federal workforce programs and

four flexible funding streams. streamlining these programs will enhance support for workers, offer a better-trained work force for employers and promote better use of taxpayer dollars. the president suggested the need for even greater consolidation, and we are happy to consider a responsible plan to do that. in fact, i sent a letter to labor secretary solis that morning that asked for more details about the new job training proposal. i look forward to receiving a timely response so we can improve the nation's workforce investment system without delay. over the last several years we've seen a lot of failed promises starting with the stimulus plan that created debt, not jobs. i know there are sharp differences on this committee, however, it is not enough to shout from the stands and criticize the plays being called on the field. i encourage members on both sides of the aisle to work to

find common ground. again i'd like to thank our witnesses for joining us and i will now recognize my distinguished colleague, mr. payne, for his opening remarks. >> good morning. mr. chairman, thank you for calling this very important hearing on job creation. and welcome to the governor, governor malloy and governor snyder. i'm pleased we'lling hearing from two state executives about their efforts to expand job opportunities. you're right there where the rubber meets the road. and i'm pleased we'll have an additional panel of experts to advise this committee on how best to move forward on this very important issue of creating jobs. last week in his state of the union, president obama challenged us to work together, to move the economy forward. i couldn't agree more. job creation is urgent issue for millions of families and businesses across