looking for technical assistance and support, and we will continue to take comment from stakeholders on other areas where guidance may be helpful. in conclusion, esa is a bipartisan achievement that row advise the statutory foundation to close our remaining gaps and address our persistent inequities. i've appreciated hearing many of your thoughts on implementation of the law so far and look forward to hearing from you today. we take your feedback and all feedback we receive very seriously and look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure high quality implementation of this law supported by the department that guarantees a world class education for every child. thank you. i'm happy to take any questions you may have. >> thank you, mr. secretary. we'll begin a round of questions now. mr. secretary, my goal would be that the country feels the same way about this new law at the end of this year as it did attend of last year. i think there was a good deal of

literal rejoicing that we had achieved a consensus in a complex area that affected so many millions of americans' families. and brought some stability to elementary and secondary education policies. so i am hopeful that after the regulations are finally done, that we'll still feel the same way. in that spirit, let me continue the conversation you and i were having. i only have five minutes. so i want to get in two or three questions. when we wrote the law, we envisioned that states would have time to plan for the transition to the law. you've heard and we've heard some states say that your proposed regulation, a account doesn't permit a state to do this. let me ask you if what i'm about to describe would be an appropriate timeline for a state in your view. that states would develop and implement their new

accountability systems during the school year that begins in 2017 and 2018. that's next year. that means they'd be collecting data in that year. then in the following year, 2018-'19, they would be identifying new schools in need of improvement. that would leave the year coming up, 2016-'17 as a transition year during which i would assume that states would continue to work with their already identified schools, although some states might want to move more rapidly. does that schedule -- would your proposed regulation allow that sort of schedule? >> i appreciate that question. our goal is to make sure that as the committee has developed this law that we focused on trying to expand the definition of educational excellence, to add

indicators alongside english and math performance and graduation rates, we want states to move as quickly as they can on that. >> right. >> the timeline assumes that '16-'17 would be a transition year and states would continue intervention in their previously identified schools. the timeline which we're seeking comment indicates that states would implement their new accountability system in '17-'18 and address the needs of schools identified in that accountability system in '17-'18. that said, we've heard feedback from states that some states would like the ability to carry over the schools in which they're intervenes from '16-'17 into '17-'18. that's feedback that we're open to and we'll continue to listen closely to comment. >> just soy understand, what i said was that a state would collect the data and develop its new accountability system in 2017-'18 and then begin to identify the schools in 2018-'19.

>> yes. understood. under the current regulations, that would not be. the interventions would begin in '17-'18. but as i said earlier this week and i'll emphasize this week, we're open to comment on the timeline and open to adjusting that timeline. the key question that states will need to address as they provide comment is in which schools will they provide additional support in '17-'18. would that be the same schools as '16-'17 -- >> let me just so i'll have time for one more question. let me strongly urge you to make clear to schools as quickly as possible that if they choose to, they could implement their new accountability the systems in 2017-'18. and then they could identify new schools under that system in the following year, 2018-'19, if they choose to do that. may i move on to one other question. your pro posed regulation requires that all schools receive a single summative

rating based on a state's accountability system. an 8-f rating system might be a good system for some states, but others has been widely criticized. new york city is moving away from using an a to f system. and the law prohibits the secretary from, quote, prescribing the specific methodology used by states to meaningfully differentiate or identify schools, unquote. i don't see anywhere within the law the word single summative rating. and how do you justify a proposed regulation requiring such a rating in light of the prohibition that was specifically in the law that the president signed in december? >> the key is that parents, educators, communities have clear information about the performance of schools. we do not require in the regulations the use of any

rating. >> state summative rating. >> right. states could take a variety of approaches to a single summative rating. they could use a through f if they so chose. they could use a newsroom hair cal index if they so chose, or they could use a categorical system which is actually required in the statute. states will have to identify schools for comprehensive improvement, comprehensive support. those schools in order to do that, they will need a summative rating to achieve that status. similarly, states will need to have schools that get targeted support that too categorical rating and schools that get no support and that too is a rating. all we require is that they have some methodology by which they can identify those schools and clearly communicate about the performance of their schools with the public. >> well, my time is up. but i'd like you to think about

where in the law you get the authority to provide for a single summative rating. senator murray? >> thank you, mr. chairman. before i go to my question -- >> may i, not taking time off yourself, i thinkly go vote if i may and leave you in charge of the committee and i'll come right back. >> okay. do that. mr. chairman, before i begin my round of questions, i want to echo the concerns that were voiced about the timeline for identifying the schools for improvement. like the chairman, have i heard from state stakeholders that states may not have their new accountability systems in place by the beginning of 2017-'18 school year. and as a result, states would have to identify schools based on old data from systems designed before esa was signed into law. that's deeply concerning to teachers and parents in my state and around the country. i hope as your department works on the final regulation, you'll address that very real issue for our states and our schools.

on the questions, i really worked hard to make sure that esa requires schools to receive supports and interventions where any group of students is consistently underperforming. however, i'm very concerned that the draft rule weakens that requirements by allowing states to compare the performance of subgroups of students to other students who may also be underperforming rather than requiring states to ensure each individual subgroup of students makes sufficient academic progress on their own. in practice, that could mean that a school could have a group of students, say students with disabilities missing their state-set goals for many years and not receiving the support which is so important that they need to improve that is required by esa. so how do you square that proposal in the regulation with the requirements of the law? >> yeah. we think it's very important that states and districts are focused on their schools where subgroups are underperforming.

the regulations create really parameters for states to develop their systems for identifying those schools that need targeted support for underperforming subgroups and provides options that states could use a system that relies on goals and targets. states could use a system that relies on the gap between subgroups and the highest achieving subgroup, for example. but states ultimately would have to identify those schools where they have struggling subgroups, and also would have to identify those schools where the struggling subgroups are struggling at a level that is consistent with the bottom 5% of schools as well. but this is a place, again, where we're open to feedback, and certainly there are contrasting views on what the parameters for state subgroup -- targeted subgroup identification should be, and we're open to feedback on that. >> i want to make sure they get the resources they need. and if we're not i'd fight them, they won't. on another issue, i'm very

concerned that my home state of washington is facing a homelessness crisis. we have school districts like everett where the number of homeless students has risen to almost a thousand. mckinny liaisons are struggling to meet the needs of homeless children and families. and that has been a goal of mine for a very long time to make sure we meet their leads. esa makes a number of changes designed to increase the capacity of liaisons to identify and support homeless children so that they can succeed in school. how is your department planning to make sure that these changes are implemented effectively? >> share your commitment to addressing the needs of homeless students. we've been holding conversations with students who have been homeless with advocacy groups to try to develop our guidance to implement the provisions of the new law regarding homeless students. and we expect to issue that guidance shortly this summer. >> okay. i'll be looking for that. and i wanted to ask you about

the preschool, which as you know is a priority for mine. esa includes new policies to encourage our states and districts and schools to use money for preschool programs. i'm very proud that my home state of washington is leading the way when it comes to using this funding for preschool. bremerton school district uses their title i money to raise the quality of child care so that kids are prepared to learn when they start kindergarten. how is your administration planning to get the word out about these new provisions and help states leverage your esa funding to improve access to high quality early learning? >> we think the commitment to preschool is one of the signature achievements of esa. we are working with health and human service on an mou around inchtation, continued implementation of the preschool developments program and its new tomorrow in esa and we're working on guide chance will focus on best practice and examples of approach just like the one you're describing where

states may use their title i dollars or school improvement dollars to focus on expanding access to preschool for students most in need. >> okay. and finally, i'm hearing a lot about teacher shortage in my state. particularly special education, teachers of english learners, stem teachers. in esa, we rewrote title ii dealing with teachers to improve that. i wanted to ask you, how is the department planning to make sure states in districts know about the new tools in esa, because we are facing this crisis? >> i'm proud to say states are doing i think some good work in this area through the equity plans that were developed under nclb and that are continued under esa. there is an opportunity for states to refine those equity plans. we also are developing guidance on title ii that we expect to issue later this year that will help point states towards their available resources and to some examples of best practice. and as you know, the president

has also made additional proposals in the 2017 budget around these kinds of teacher shortage issues, including strengthening teacher loan forgiveness, and the best job in the world initiative, which would focus on recruiting great teachers to high needs schools. >> okay. very much appreciate that senator enzi? >> thank you, senator murray. i appreciate this hearing, and thank you for being here, mr. secretary. you and i had a phone conversation prior to your help committee confirmation hearing in which you kind of conveyed to me that you didn't intend to follow every student succeeds act as written. so that led me to vote against your confirmation. an example is section 8205 of the bipartisan law states that the secretary must identify the department of education positions that are no longer required due to the elimination of programs and subsequent shift to authority back to the states. that law requires the secretary to not later than one year after

such date of enactment reduce the workforce of the department by the number of full-time equivalent employees the department identified. when i asked you if you were on track to reduce the positions of the number of positions at the department of education within one year, you state you'd were going to move those positions to other areas within the department. i wrote you a letter after that conversation asking you to clarify your answer. i had to wait three and a half months for a response from you to that letter. and i only got it yesterday afternoon. i hope we don't have to have a hearing any time we want to get a late response from you. and i'd like to know if you're on track to reduce the number of positions within the department of education per the statutory requirements that none of us voted against and that was signed into law by president obama. we all agreed to reduce the size of the department of education. it's the law. will you do so?

>> to be clear, we will certainly follow the statute. the programs that yes discussed in our call that existed in 2015 were funded through the appropriations process in 2016. those programs continue, and the employees associated with those programs continue to do that work. as programs are phased out through the appropriations process and the closeout process is completed for those programs, yes, those positions would be eliminated. we talked about the individuals, the incumbents in those positions. and i said i thought it was likely that some of those people would pursue other positions, available positions within the department. but to be clear, if there are prooms that are eliminated, then those staff positions will not be needed. but virtually every program that existed in 2015 was funded through appropriations process for 2016. >> you know, in the senate, there are distinctly different jobs. the appropriators get to set the

maximum amount of money that you can do. the authorizers set what you can do. that law is very clear that as it's written. and we worked on this reauthorization for many years. and i think we finally got to it where it needs to be. we're not rewriting it. and i expect that you won't do it as well. i'd encourage you to answer all congressional inquiries within a timely manner, and actually have the inquiry come from you. i haven't gotten anything from you yet. i've gotten it from some assistants. and i had to wait over three months for a response to that letter i wrote allowing you an opportunity to clarify an answer that troubled me. there are two other letters that were sent by senator alexander and i. and, again, those letters are answered by subordinates. so i appreciate the response from your staff, but when i write to you, i expect to hear from you.

and because we're doing a vote, i won't take a lot of time. i've got two more very important questions that i think are a part of the law that i will submit. so i yield the balance of my time. >> senator murphy and senator murphy, i believe senator alexander should be back by the time you finish as well. so. >> thank you very much, senator murray. welcome back. secretary king. thank you very much for being so available to us, making frequent visits before the committee. i know how important this is to you. and you know how important it is to us. i want to talk to you about the accountability regulations and in particular, i wanted to ask you two questions. one about the regulations around insize, which for members here that don't know is the terminology we use to determine the size of the subgroups that are counted for accountability purposes. and then i wanted to ask you a second question on how we

measure the performance of the subgroups. as many of us have said over and over and over again, esa is fundamentally a civil rights law there is no reason for the u.s. congress to be involved in the business of local education unless we are in the business of making sure that this is a basket of civil rights protections. and we made very clear in the law that we wanted schools to have specific targeted interventions for what we call subgroups. these are populations of poor students or disabled students or minority students. but we also specifically said in the law that congress wasn't going to dictate, nor was the administration going to dictate how big these subgroups would be. but clearly, there is a number that is in violation of both i would argue the spirit and the letter of the law. if you had a subgroup that was a hundred students large, and

anything under a hundred students didn't count as a subgroup, then you wouldn't be in compliance with the law. so rightfully, the regulations while true to the law, not stating a particular number says that if your number is 30 or higher, you at least got to explain why. and the reason for that is that if every state pegs their number at 30 or higher, then one out of every five disabled student, for instance, in this country won't be subject to any accountability standards. and i guess i wanted to ask you about why you picked this number 30. because i think there is a lot of us that are concerned that that number is too high. that in fact there are 29 states today that have insizes that are under 30, that under this regulation might consider moving that number up. so just talk to me about this issue of why you picked 30.

many of us are very concerned that if that becomes the new normal, and any minority student or poor student who is in a school and there is less than 30 of them, that they won't be counted. that leaves a lot of kids outside of the accountability system. just talk to me about that. >> as you indicated, the law preserves the ability for states to set the insize. but we wanted to make sure that there were thoughtful parameters as states think about what end size to use. we use this to provide justification if they're going over 30. well did that based on research evidence there was an ies student that showed for students with disabilities, if you set the end size above 30, you would only get to about 32% of students with disabilities. but if you set it at 30 or lower, you would get to 79% of students with disabilities

potentially being identified within subgroups in schools. that's how we came up with 30. the idea was that states would give their explanation in their state plan, and that would be subject to peer review. >> how about the second question about the accountability regimes. you've allowed for a multitude of factors be built into accountability standards. but i'm concerned that there could be states that use standards that don't necessarily tell the true story of how students are performing. so for instance, in my state, we've got pretty high graduation rates. but we have pretty low proficiency rates in math and reading. so for instance, 58% of african american high school students are proficient in reading yet they have a graduation rate of 80%. so if you use graduation rates, then you're not really seeing the underlying story, in parts because you have things like social promotion that pushes kids out the door. so what are the tools at the department's disposal to make sure that these accountability

systems are actually capturing the true performance of students? >> you know, the statute really gives states the responsibility to design their accountability systems, as you know. but also says that the academic indicators need to have substantial weight and much greater weight than the nonacademic indicators. so we've tried to structure the state planned process so that the peers will evaluate whether or not states have indeed complied with that substantial wait requirement and much greater wait requirement by showing that schools that aren't making much academic progress continue to get the support that they need to improve performance for students that schools that are getting targeted support because of subgroup underperformance actually see meaningful improvement in the academic performance of those subgroups. so again, we have tried to balance both state flexibility with guardrails to make sure that states really are paying attention to the kids who are most at risk. >> i just have these questions to the committee where there are

a lot of us that were very involved in the accountability regulations who frankly don't think that they go far enough. to the extent in this city you know you have done something right when both sides aren't happy. i know that there are many that think the regulations go too far there are many that think they could have gone much farther. and i appreciate you taking concerns from both sides. last thing, mr. chairman, some of the data that i was referring to was in a study called sharing equity in esa, the role of end size and subgroup accountability for excellent education. i ask to enter this into the record. >> it will be, senator murphy. senator burr? >> mr. secretary, i'll be brief because of the vote. why does the federal department of education not trust local schools to solve problems in their own school systems? >> well, we do trust state and local flexibility. at the same time, we know there is a long history in this country of states and districts not --

>> pass legislation that reinforced their local flexibility, you don't buy that? >> we think that local flexibility is important, but we also think the law importantly provides civil rights guardrails that are essential. >> have you ever been to a school in north carolina? >> i have visited schools in north carolina. >> have you been there since you have been secretary? >> i've not been to a school in north carolina since i have been secretary. no. >> you cite in this rule within the proposed regulation that you're forcing this new accountability regime on 90,000 schools. you point to research done in 2014 by the national bureau of economic research on how nclb accountability systems and school labeled for sanctions improved in areas that led to their identification in the state's accountability system. that research focused on north carolina. and i took interest in this citation because of north carolina. what your rule doesn't mention in citing that research is that

the authors of the research explicitly cautioned that giving the limited breadth of the research finding, and i quote, one should not jump to the conclusion that no child left behind style sanctioned regimes is an effective way to identify schools in need of change, unquote. simple question. why would you continue to head down this destructive path? >> i don't thi >> i think our regulations preserve and advance state and local flexibility within the areas of defining educational excellence and defining the interventions in struggling schools. i agree that one of the problems in no child left behind was an overly prescriptive set of responses to struggles in schools. at the same time, we have to make sure that states and districts pay attention when their students of color or their low income students or english learners or students with disabilities are not performing. >> in your comments back on this

rule have, you had people supportive of this pathway that you're headed down? >> the proposed accountability regulations reflect much of the comment that we have received. and i anticipate that we will continue to get comment, particularly from parents organizations, educator organization, and civil rights organizations who worry that in the about a sense of the civil rights guardrails that the law puts in place -- >> i would ask you to share with the committee that group of lists who have come out and said they're supportive of this pathway. i thank the chair. >> thank you, senator burr. senator warren? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here, secretary king. the department of education recently released its latest civil rights data collection report, a survey of americans' public schools that looks at students' access to resources like advanced classes that prepare them for college. but when i review the data, i'm very concerned by what i see.

low income students and students of color are disproportionately attending schools where they simply don't have access to the kinds of classes they need for our most competitive colleges and universities. i just want to highlight one example out of the report. according to your data, the clear majority of mostly white high schools offer calculus, which a prerequisite for most colleges. only a third of mostly black and latino high schools offer calculus which means kids attending two-thirds of mostly black or latino high schools are at a serious disadvantage in preparing themselves for college. so, secretary king can you explain how the department's implementation of essa and your proposed regulations will help close these critical opportunity gaps for our students? >> yes. certainly our hope is that as

states develop their accountability systems they will include indicators like advance course work. you're right about calculus. similar pattern is around chemistry. states have the option to include that kind of indicator and then to act on it, we hope. we also think it's important states are transparent about equitable access to resource. we also think this goes to the heart of the supplement question to the extent that schools serving high need students can offer these courses it's bound up with a lack of resources and ensuring the federal resources are indeed supplemental is essential to making sure kids have equal access to these opportunities. >> thank you very much. i'm glad your proposed rules give us better data to shine light on these disparities but we need to use that data to make clear to states that short changing students based on where they live or their family

incomes is just unacceptable and i hope you'll continue to deliver the message loud and clear as you move forward with the accountability provisions in essa. i want to turn to some other troubling data recently out of the department. this time it's on the higher education side. new data from the department student loan bank show that despite the availability of many repayment options to help students, we're still facing an avalanche of student loan defaults. when a student defaults the bank hammers them, seizing wage, slamming their credit reports. it seems like life isn't so hard for the servicers who get paid to manage those loans. here's my question, secretary king. the department announced a new competition for these servicing contracts and i know, you are looking to clean up these deals. can you tell me what you're doing to make sure that the next round of negotiations creates

some accountability for these companies so they actually help families who are struggling instead of just fattening their own bottom lines >> yeah. so we are developing a new servicer contract and a new servicer structure that will involve a common platform with multiple servicers providing services through that platform. so borrowers will have a single entry point where they can get and submit information but then servicers will compete on performance. one of the key things that we've done in that servicer contract recompete we built in a set of principles that implement the president's student's bill of rights, student borrowers bill of rights. those principles were developed joiply with the treasury department and cfpb and we think represent what good servicing should look like. so this contract will proceed in several stages. first, identification of the platform provider and then

identification of the servicers who will work on that platform. but we intend to ensure servicers do a good job supporting students. >> good. i'm very glad to hear this. let me just put a finer point on this. what role should the company's political influence here in congress or their connections to officials inside the student loan bank play in the selection process for these servicers? >> none. >> good. thank you. you know, thee years ago the head of the student loan bank testified in this committee that it was basically impossible to hold one of the biggest servicers accountable for breaking the rules because they were more or less too big to fail and this has to stop. past performance matters. if the department grants another massive new contract to a company with a track record of harming students and members of the military, then -- or if the company is facing state ag and federal lawsuit investigations then i think that's a serious

problem. i know that you want real reform and that means holding these student loan servicers accountable. i know that those companies have a lot of lobbyists right here on capitol hill. but the families and students don't and they need you. >> absolutely. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you senator warren. senator isakson. >> thank you. thank you for calling in advance asking me what i was going to ask you. number one, i've been a big believer -- i'm married to a teacher, working with special education for years. have always had a quarrel of 1% cap because i believe the iep ought to be required for every student in american schools to determine the best educational plan both exceedingly good or exceedingly bad. with that said what are you doing to help ensure kids are

identified in terms of their education and what are you doing to give us the flexible necessary to see that a kid can be assessed. >> this was one of the topics that was part of the negotiated rulemaking and consensus was reached on the structure both for the requirements for the 1% cap and also the waiver process for the 1% cap. that consensus reflects the principle that we believe all students with the right supports and accommodations can ultimately succeed except there is an important need to pay attention to the needs of those with severe cognitive disabilities who may be unable to achieve at the same level. and so the negotiators tried to strike the right balance in both defining the cap and defining the requirements for the waiver. >> i want to yield in favor of the child every single time with a disability. we need to make sure they are getting the appropriate

assessment. secondly, on what miss warren was asking a minute going aren't all student loans now direct loans from the government? >> there are student loans taken through private lenders but within the direct loan program, we try to put in place repayment options that we think will help address some of the default problem that we have by allowing folks to cap the percentage of their income that goes to student loan repayment of 10%. >> service agents are agents for the government are they not. >> the servicers do work for us under contract, and unfortunately i think historically those contracts have not built in all the borrower protections they should have and we intend to ensure they do. >> that's our fault not the servicers fault am i correct >> at the end of the day the servicers also have responsibility to not try to read the contract to find loopholes to provide these than adequate service to students. rather than focus on where we've

been we're focused on where we're going forward and showing contracts built in the right protections. >> point i want to get to is this. one of the biggest things we need to do in education is teach our kids how to be responsible in managing their own money. student loans is a good way to do that. the more we to us the on teaching students to borrow what they can repay an repayment is an obligation not a promise. on the 95% threshold, you familiar with what i'm talking about >> yeah. >> we gave a lot of flexibility to systems and i gave a lot of flexibilities to let parents opt their child out of assessment. are you familiar with that >> yes. >> because of opt-out the system may fall below 95% is that correct >> both nclb and students have requirement that states would assess all students and as you know has a specific requirement

for state action when participation falls below 95%. >> 95% is a goal and the state has the responsibility if the state doesn't meet that goal they execute a plan to get to that point. >> in our regulations we provide a set of options for states including a state determined option for how they would address being under the 95% participation. ultimately getting to the, all student participation that's required by the statute. >> are you sure there are options or mandates. >> a set of options including a state determined option. >> because our intention, what secretary alexander said or chairman alexander tried to get us to do and we did a very good job it is setting goals but leaving the administration, the punishment, calculation and goals to achieve those are the mechanisms to achieve those goals to the states not the federal government. >> this is a place where there would be state options and states would describe which option they had chosen in their state plan that would be subject to peer review.

>> the point is it's very important we carry out not only the letter of the law but the spirit of the law and the spirit of that law was to leave the determination of the local board of education or state wherever possible to achieve and meet those goals. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. secretary, you have no authority in the law to prescribe specific options. that's the job of the congress. and that's something we need to talk about as we go along. none whatsoever. just to be clear. none whatsoever. >> we describe options and then states choose. >> but you do not have the authority to require, to define what options states may choose. the state has the specific authority and flexibility under the law to do that. that's what the no child left behind kept doing. that's what the problem is with this rule. >> so just to be clear one of the options is the state defines exactly what they will do and then that is part of their state

plan. so, just to be clear, although we describe options, if the state is determining their approach entirely. >> that's helpful. thank you. thank you for allowing me to clear that you want. senator franken. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to talk about something that is of particular interest to me and i was very glad we were able to get and which is make being sure foster kids can stay in their school when they change foster parents. we had testimony, i think back in 2010 of a young lady name kayla from minnesota who ended up going to hamlin and had done very well, very impressive young lady. she had missed fourth grade entirely when she changed parents. and these kids, foster kids have

10, 11 parents, foster parents routinely and very often the only constant in their life is their school. and so what has been going on is that kids who have a favorite subject, a session teacher, an in their school that's constant in their life, friends for goodness sake in school suddenly change foster parents and forced to go to a different school. and everyone agreed finally we got this done, and so basically the way we wrote it is that the school district and the public welfare agencies have to figure out how to pay for transportation. if the kid is moved outside the school district, to get to

school -- so in your proposed regulation school districts are ultimately responsible for providing and funding transportation for foster kids to their school of origin. since it's the comment period on that regulation, i would like to comment, and i rather you go with your guidance because your guidance does not specific who is ultimately responsible. i would like the school and welfare agencies in the state to be working together on this. i want to eliminate any kind of barrier to this happening. this makes such a difference to these kids. and these kids deserve to stay in their schools. so that's my comment. >> appreciate that. we share that commitment around educational stability for foster youth because kids are moving between schools. that's often the reason why kids

miss school. do not make academic progress they need. retain in grade and dropout. we say the child welfare agencies and school districts should be working together and we offer examples of best practice around the country, including best practice around dispute resolution when the child welfare agency and lea have different perspectives. it's true in the regulations we try to offer a path for how those disputes would ultimately be resolved around transportation costs. yes we're taking comment and consider all comment including yours. >> thank you for including my comment. i'm a senator. my goodness. i think all of you should be insulted. okay. >> i want to talk about something else that i worked for to get in this bill. given that one in five youth between the ages of 13 to 18

have or will have a serious mental illness, i firmly believe that mental health is one of our country's most pressing unmet needs. i'm proud of the work we've been able to accomplish on mental health but we have a long way to go. we include provisions to increase mental health services in schools. that's why i was very disappoin that the spending bill that passed out of the senate committee did not provide adequate funding for student support and academic enrichment grants which includes my mental health provisions and other critical programs that americans really care about. that is really something that parents care about and the schools care about and i'm hopeful that we can increase the funding once this bill comes to the floor. my question is what can the

department of education do to support school districts that are trying to expand mental health services at the local level because i've seen this work in school -- in school districts that do this. i've had roundtables with parents who say it has changed their family, it has changed their kid's life it has changed them. >> we share your disappointment with the proposed funding level for title 4. the president proposed a significant increase. $222 million in addition to title 4 because we would like to see more access to mental health services among other elements that are addressed in title 4. we issued joint guidance earlier this year with health and human services to help guide schools and districts on how to take advantage of the affordable care act, to support school based mental health services. we think there are existing

dollars used to support school based mental health services and we offered examples of best practices in the joint efforts. and our supporting efforts to meet community based health providers to get the mental health services to kids and family. often mental health issues in the family have an impact on the family as well. we share your commitment and would love to see the title 4 funding higher. >> thank you, thank you mr. chairman and i hope my colleagues share this commitment to mental health in schools so that we can maybe get a little bit more funding for that. >> thank you senator franken, senator roberts? >> thank you, mr. chairman, as the distinguished chairman of the committee has said many times, the bill we passed last year to reauthorize essa

restores responsibility to states by providing increased flexibility to implement the education programs. the keyword here is local. i'm very proud it includes my language to permanently end the federal government's ability to use any coercion to force states to adopt common core, that want common core, fine, if they don't, that is the intent. in fact, just to be absolutely clear, here is what my language says, no officer, employee of the federal government including the secretary shall attempt to influence, condition insent vice or coerce state adoption of the common core state standards or any other academic standards to a significant number of states or assessments tied to such standards. here is the problem. a high ranking education leader in kansas pointed out to me, and the point he wants to be

anonymous is telling. it is not in our opinion that the new essa law balsed on the current version of proposed regulations is giving states flexibility around developing a rigorous and accountable model. it appears that once again, he said, we can only build something as long as it meets a strict federal requirement. now that certainly sounds like, to me, at least, that the department of education is not following the spirit and intent of the every student succeeds act. as everyone is aware, essa has countle countless prohibitions saying the government is mandated from coercion supervision that adopt common core state standards. the administration is prohibited from influencing incentivizing or coercing states or school

districts to adopt any specific academic standards. now, mr. secretary, i would like specifically like to bring your attention to section 1005 b of the act which states that states shall provide an assurance, assurance, assurance, that the state has adopted challenging academic content standards. i repeat that. a state shall only provide an assurance that they have adopted academic standards. now, turning to proposed regulations 29916 which addressed the state plan requirements for challenging academic standards and academic assessments, this section would require each state education agency to provide evidence, evidence demonstrating that it is adopting changing academic standards and aligned academic achievement standards.

my question, what is the evidence for? who is the judge? where is it going? what federal involvement or requirement has now been reinstated regarding academic standards? this to me is an example of the department of education trying to influence state academic standards once again and it is also contrary to your commitment to me with respect to the intent as well as the explicit probations during your nomination hearing. in my view there is a big difference between providing an assurance and providing evidence. this proposed regulation evicerates the intent of congress and essa. would you please explain what i think is a blatant violation of prohibitions and the essa statute that says the state need only to provide an assurance that they have adopted academic standards.

not evidence. to somebody within the dusty common core halls of the department of education. >> so, let me say this clearly as possible, that standards are determined by states. the law is clear on that point. we are clear on that point. i've been clear on that point as you said in our prior conversations. the law also requires a process for ensuring that states have an assessment system that has been through peer review and that is fair to students and reliable. as part of that process, states provide evidence to peer reviewers, other states, and experts on assessment who participate in process to ensure that the state has gone through a rigorous and reliable process of matching their standards to the assessments and as part of that process, that peer review process, which is under way -- >> who are the folks again? we're doing a two step here, not

a one step. >> this is unrelated to the content of the standard. >> we don't just check the box and say we're assuring you we're doing that with regards to the standards that are probably in writing, so that they can understand what they are, but you're saying that there is a secondary step that they're going through with a whole bunch of folks who then have to say okay, we're providing evidence. i don't know what that evidence is. i don't know what it means. is this a lot of paperwork, a rigorous test, what is it? >> this is the long standing peer review process required under nclb is still in place under essa. peer review to assure at acceptancement system in the state develops is a valid one and as parth of that process, the peer reviewers. >> who are the peer reviewers. >> other states and experts on assessment. who would participate in the peer review process. >> the big 12 or what -- what are we doing here? >> this would be folks who work in other states and who have worked on assessment systems across states who try to ensure

that the assessments are fair and reflect the law consistent with the law so what states are doing is providing evidence of a process by which they have aligned their assessments -- >> but we shed assurance. we didn't say this is two different things and now you have a peer review folks, perhaps they're helpful but again, they could just check the box with assurance as opposed to providing evidence to i don't know how many peer review groups you're talking about but it seems like we have to have further discussion. i appreciate your response. >> look, we're open to feed back on how we can make absolutely clear in the regulations that standards are set by states. that is clearly a shared commitment. >> i think there is a peer review for my distinguished colleague from massachusetts and kansas, perhaps that would not be received with open arms and probably from kansas to

massachusetts would be the same thing. i apologize. thank you senator roberts. senator bennet. >> thank you very much for holding this hearing, mr. secretary it is great to see you again. thank you for your leadership, we in colorado last week, a bunch of folks came together and had an essa summit there. there is a lot of excitement about the possibility of now being out from under no child left behind. we're having conversations about how we used that flexibility at the same time, make sure we have the rigger that is needed and i know you, yourself, were a former principal of a school. i wonder whether you can talk about what the department is doing to ensure that the voices and the knowledge of the people that are working in our schools, our teachers and our principals are being involved in essa implementation around the country. >> that is a priority for us and the priority that we have communicated to states around their process. we have held over 200 meetings around the country with

educators, with parents, with community leaders as we've worked to develop regulations and guidance and received over 700 comments from individuals and organizations -- comments from over 700 individuals and organizations. at the state level, we put out a letter that week to states laying out regulations and i think lots of states are doing a good job on this. we wonder some aren't, some haven't worked with their districts to make sure that teachers and principals for example can get release time, so that they can participate in this process. some states have been slower than others to engage tribal leaders and civil rights organizations. we've been encouraging folks around the council of chief state school officers, put out a guide that they developed with a number of organizations including civil rights organizations and we've made clear on the regulations stake holder engagement throughout the process is required. >> one of the things that is certainly true of the change in

the laws that we have devolved the responsibility for implementation back to the states in a fairly significant way. how do you expect overtime we're going to be able to identify those places where they really are setting a rigorous standard for kids in demanding that standard for kids in places where it is a less rigorous standard and what do you expect the conversation to be like? >> yeah, i think there are a number of protections around that. one one is the peer review process that i was just talking with senator roberts about. the other is the transparency requirements that i think will help us understand where subgroups are not performing and we'll be able to see our states making progress there. one of the things that the department is going to need to be vigilant about is the law provides flexibility for states on how to intervene in schools struggling or schools with low graduation rates or struggling subgroups. we have to make sure those inth

conventions actually translate into progress and that states respond when that progress isn't made. >> can you talk about also, it has been said up here that this law is a civil rights law. i don't think there is any other reason for the federal government to be involved in education other than that. the k-12 level. can you talk about what you're doing, the department is doing to ensure that as we go forward, that spirit is maintained and the commitment to equity, that i think everybody up here shares to one degree or the other is also maintained. >> we try throughout the accountability regulations to preserve the important civil rights guard rails making clear that states need to provide data for all subgroups on not just at the level but each of the accountability indicators that they put in place. states need to have a clear process in place for identifying schools that are -- that have

consistently under performing subgroups and have intervention to improve subgroup performance. that there is clear data desegregation under equitabale access. this work will require continued vig lensilance to make sure we let kids fall through the cracks. >> my time is almost up. i want to get in one last question. there are no more federal models or escalating consequences as they were in no child left behind. that is now left to the states and local districts to figure out, to research and design these -- and i just wonder whether you've thought through that about how people can -- are going to have the research they need to be able to implement targeted school improvement strategies in this new world. >> it is very important that folks do that informed by evidence about what works and

certainly in efforts like the education innovation and research fund. the work of ies will work to provide the evidence base. we try in the regulations to talk about how states can, as they move progressively forward and more intense interventions, if schools aren't making progress, that they need to rely on stronger evidence of effectiveness as they move through those levels of intervention, because we do have some good evidence around interventions that work. we know that in schools with struggling english learningers, professional development working with english lernearn learners, have a duel education base. >> thank you mr. secretary thank you mr. chairman. >> senator colins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, as i listen to the debate at this hearing today, i am reminded of a provision that

i wrote that was included in the dodd frank act that was known appearance the collins amendment. i had a long standing battle with federal regulators on the implementation of that amendment and finally, the banking committee actually held a hearing on what was the intent of the collins amendment. needless to say, i was the lead off witness and i started off by pointing out that i was collins, i am collins, i'm still around, and i know what my intent is, and i would say to you, mr. secretary, hearing the debate today, that senator alexander and senator murray who are the authors of this rewrite of the elementary and secondary education act are still here, they know what their intent is, they were careful in drafting

the bill, and that is why there is this frustration that many of us are feeling. i want to talk about the reporting requirements that are included in your proposed regulations. now, i think all of us can agree that transparency is essential but reporting requirements should not be so onerous that small schools have difficulty in complying unless they are specifically authorized by the every student succeeded act. we want to make sure that the reporting requirements give parents and communities the information about their state accountability systems, but the proposed regulations establish many more reporting requirements than required by the law. they include, among other

things, how states calculate and report data on the report cards. additional data for charter school students, and procedures for calculating reporting district and school expenditures, can you, two questions, can you point to specific authority in essa that you believe allows the department to propose the additional reporting requirements which appear to me to be contrary to the intent of the law and second, how does the department square these additional reporting requirements with the mandate in the law that report cards be concise, understandable, and accessible? >> we believe the reporting requirements in the draft regulations are consistent with the statute. we certainly are open to feed

back on the reporting requirements as we are to the entire regulation. we look forward to feed back from stake holders. there are places in the statute where in order to fulfill the requirement of the statute, additional data will be necessary for states, but again, we're open to feed back on the proposed regulations and if there are places where folks think that there i already, for example, an existing data report that addresses something, we're open to consolidating those, so this is a place where we look forward to stake holder feed back. >> well, to me, it is obvious in the law what is required, so i hope you'll take a look. i want to second the comments made by the chairman about the sumative rating for three rating categories for each school. the act requires that states evaluate their schools on

academic and nonacademic factors but it does not require that each school be given a single rating. so here we go. we seem to be going in the proposed regulations, away from the new, ino aggravative educational approaches in favor of maintaining the status quo and the inflexible requirements of no child left behind that were discouraging to teachers, to parents, to administrators and students alike. how does a sumative rating which essentially reduces the school to a single number or letter grade support the goal of state flexibility which was a fundamental premise of the rewrite of this law? >> yeah, just to be clear, the summative reading in the

regulation does not require the use of a letter grade. state could use those but the state could also use cat governor call system consist catagorical system consistent with the statute. they have to be evaluated for comprehensive support, for targeted support and schools in neither of the categories. . that is consistent with the summative rating approach. to identify the bottom five % of schools that will get the comprehensive support, states will need to have a methodology to identify those schools that will require relative comparison of school performance. exactly what is intended by the summative rating language. so we think that the rating is consistent with the statute. >> i would beg to differ, but my time has expired. >> thank you, senator collins.

senator casey? >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, thanks for being here today and for your testimony. we all want to make sure that we're making the right investments and the right decisions with regard to children, i've often said if kids learn more now, they'll earn more later. it is not just a rhyme, it is literally the truth. we know that. that starts certainly with great teachers at core of that process of learning more so they can earn more later. we want to ask you two basic questions about teachers, just first on the question of professional development, we know that in essa, part of my legislation's so called best act was included to make sure that states and districts, school districts implement evidence based activities to strengthen

the teaching profession and keep great teachers in the classroom. could you describe the work that your department is doing to support districts in providing effective professional development and then i have a second question about teachers. >> yeah, we certainly believe professional development can be key to improving academic outcomes and improving teacher's ability to serve particularly at risk populations of students, english learners. students with disabilities. we plan to issue guidance on title 2 with some examples of best practice around the use of title $2. we also are supporting states as they implement the equity plans around equitable access to effective teaching. many of those ekity plans rely heavily on professional development. we have programs that are part of the education innovation and research or i3 program and as those evaluations come back, we'll have even a broader

evidence base around effective professional and development strategies that states and districts will be able to access. >> i appreciate that, because we can't seek to have great teachers in classrooms if we don't have great professional development. i want to ask you as well, it is an issue that i think senator bennett raised earlier and i want to expand upon a little bit. this question of engagement by stake holders which is always the intent that we have educators, teachers and other education professionals, parents, and community leaders involved, and i know there has been a fairly robust and significant engagement, but i wanted to -- i wanted you to give us a sense of how do you measure that, how do you demonstrate that there has been that kind of engagement. i know you've sent a letter to

state leaders highlighting the importance of that kind of engagement. i know and i would applaud what senator murray and representative scott have done with raising this issue but i wanted to get your sense of kind of where we are with engaging all of those critically important stake holders. >> yeah, there are nouencouragi signs. they issued a guide to stake holder engagement pointing out best practices and they did that in part 234er ship with 30 organizations, civil rights organizations, educator organizations. i think that was an important step and resource for states. as i've talked with state chiefs, i've heard about efforts to do statewide tours to hold public hearings, the effort to reach out to tribal leaders and civil rights organizations, parent groups, particularly parents of groups that have been historically under served, there is a range. one reason we issued the dear

colleague letter is because some states they've been slower, some they've had a challenge around teachers and principals in particular getting the time that they need, the release time from the districts to participate in these activities. we wanted to try to encourage states to be very active in getting their districts to make sure that educators can participate fully. we respecalso set out a require for frequent, consistent engagement of stake holders. we think the success of the law is partly bound up with how effectively states mobilize a diverse cross section of stake holders in this work. >> we appreciate that. we want to hear all of those voices, especially the voices of educators. i'll submit for the record a question on the work on suspensions and expulsions, trying to reduce the use of that -- those practices, so we'll submit that in writing. thanks very much. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator casey,

senator milkowski. >> i wanted to follow up on a question on the measures of progress, the amp assessment. we were compelled to cancel the statewi statewide. we had unexplained and unfixed technical problems that prevented students from able to complete the amp. a lot of frustration as i mentioned to you. you receive allied a letter last week that outlines, that federal law requires assessments to provide valid, reliable data that informs instruction and it has to be of adequate technical quality and consistent with national recognized testing standards. the state department of education requested a waiver

from the requirement to assess during the 15-16 school year. the question to you is will you approve the state's waiver? >> as you know, we've been in close communication with leadership in alaska. i think we're waiting the submission of some materials describing some of what took place as part of their waiver application, we will certainly review those when they come in. >> how much time do you figure you'll need to make this determination? because this is -- i mean, this is obviously very, very important to the state of alaska. >> in the past, in these situations it has been a matter of weeks that we've needed to review the material submitted by the state, including the state's plan to make sure that they have a system in place. >> you've had it for some time now, but you're saying that you're requiring additional information from the state? >> there is information that we can follow up on the details. there is information we're awaiting from the state on the

events that occurred and also the plans to ensure that next year, they'll be able to implement assessments consistent with the law. >> and i think we've had the conversation, it is not as if they want to avoid assessment, but again, when you have -- when you have things totally beyond your control, when kansas basically goes dark, if you will, and you cannot complete the testing, it really is a situation that calls out for review and for waiver, so we would ask you to move on that very quickly. now, you have indicated that you are waiting for some information from the state. i am still waiting for some information from your offices. when you were before the committee in april, you committed to make sure that my office was looped in as the department and the state worked through the assessment vendor. i'm told that we're still waiting for answers to some 13

different questions that we sent to you, so can you commit to me that you will get these questions answered to me by the end of the week here? can you look into that. >> i can look into it. i don't know if some of the answers to your questions are tied to the materials that we're awaiting but i can follow up on that. >> i appreciate it. and then i would ask you about a proposal. this is the diversity proposal, or diversity priority, excuse me, that you have proposed to add for all of the departments k-12 and post secondary competitive grants. this priority would require all applicants to seek to increase schools racial and socio economic diversity and i understand schools and campuses can satisfy the requirement by investigating the barriers to diversity, changing school assignment policies, creating or expanding school choice or changing how funds are allocated

to schools. so i think we all would recognize that increasing diversity in the schools is a worthy goal, i also understand the concerns about outcomes of students that are enrolled in some of the nation's very high, high poverty schools, but we've got, we've got a different situation in alaska and i hope that you recognize it. we have some very, very isolated regions in the state. these are regions that are bigger than most other states, poverty is high, the population and in most of these is almost entirely alaska native. there is no roads, 80 perls of the -- 80% of the communities in alaska are not accessible by road. often times it is very dangerous to transit in the winter. we know the barriers, we know the barriers very well. many of the schools are barely able to sustain a k-12 school so school choice is not an issue here and allocating funds is not going to change the facts on the

ground. it is still a very small school, very isolated geographically islanded, so the proposal, as we look at it, couessentially prev many rural school districts and campuses from qualifying for any competitive grants from the department and of course, these are just exactly the grants designed to help the schools serve the schools better, so i would ask, if you would look at this proposal and either redraft it so that schools in places like alaska that are so remote and are so unique are either exempt from this proposal or rescinded all together. but i think it is an issue where we can't change the facts on the ground or move the village into a place where it is on a road system. what do i do? >> that is understood.

this priority would be one that would not be automatically applied to all grant programs, the inclusion -- >> then wouldn't we be left out of a funding opportunity? >> so as we develop grant programs, this is one of the considerations that we would have, whether it is feasible for all of the grant applicants to pursue this particular priority. many of our grants, as you know, have priorities around serving rural schools and rural communities. we would certainly take into account issues of geographic isolation as we assemble a grant application. >> okay. i've raised it to you and i would ask for your due consideration, either that alaska be exempt or other states similarly situated or again redrafting, but if you could look at that, i would appreciate that. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you senator murkowski. >> thank you secretary king. two topics from me, one, we're

working as you know there, was a middle school's element in the essa. we understand you don't propose any regulations in that area. we're working with the middle school groups to try to get a consolidated view that we can work with you on for guidance, a letter of guidance with respect to the middle school requirements. so that is a preview of coming attractions and i won't hold you to any of that until we've done our homework with the middle school groups. the second issue has to do with the provision of the bill related to innovation schools. as you know, if you are a very, very big fancy foundation with a lot of money and you have an innovation idea, you have a very strong capacity to push that idea into and through the multiple layers education

bureaucra bureaucracy. the concern that led to the innovation element in the bill was if you're a school and you want to ino aggravanovate in a way and you don't have a group that adopted you, you want to do what you think is best for the kids, you look out at multiple layers of forest, you look out first at the layer of forest of the municipal education over sight and then if you can get through that, then there is the second layer of the state education over sight apparatus and how will i be able to get through that and if you can get through both of those there, is the third problem of what do you do with the federal education over siegth apparatus. -- over sight apparatus. my concern is unless there was a path illuminated through the forests, we lost an enormous amount of innovation from journeys that were never begun.

at the very get go, they took a look at the multiple layered bureau accuratic forest in front of them and said you know what? not worth our effort. i have no idea how this could possibly turn out in our favor. so to me, at least, and to the groups that worked with me on this, to be able to move innovation out of just big, like, intellectual centers of foundation and and so forth and have it happen in schools is a really important thing. i wasn't in the conference so i can't vouch for the -- what happened to this in conference, you and i have talked about what i've been told about who was the adversary of the provision in conference, but i would very much like to hear from you now as you look at the innovations schools piece what the intentions how seriously you think you take this, and whether you think there actually is a role for innovation at the school developed level rather than

waiting around for big foundations to be the champions. >> i have nothing against the big foundations. i just think they're not the only one. >> i share your commitment on middle schools, i was a middle school principal, now i'm a middle school parent, i think middle schools have a crucial role to play in students long-term success. i look forward to working together on that. on the innovations schools, i think the way that essa and the regulations work together creates significantly more space for school based innovation and we've been careful to think about that as we've been drafting the innovations. eliminating the one size fits all school intervention approach of no child left behind creates a lot of new space for states and districts to innovate in those schools that need to improve their performance. >> that obviously only applies to schools that have fallen into the pit and need to try to

extricate themselves. for a school doing well and wants to do something innovative. unless you can tell me something else, you need a path like the innovation schools pathway. they have no way of knowing nor do they have the administrative resources to attempt how they would get through that multiple set of bureaucratic obstacles and approvals in front of them. >> the way we've approached the regulations creates quite a bit of space in terms of the federal role. there is no obstacle in the regulations to states creating a similar path through some of the existing state constraints. but certainly happy to continue to talk about ways that we can encourage that. >> the principal of this is that if -- there can be a process of alignment where the municipality, the federal government agrees that it will

step out and let innovation happen if the state and the municipality have all done the same thing and if certain requirements have been met at the school level from the get go that show that this is a community supported stake holder supported, teacher supported, you know, well developed effort. to say that we're not going to stop the state government from doing it is a little bit different from saying we will accept that there should be a path that is lit for schools that want to do this so they can know if they follow this path, can get to a result rather than just, like i said, a lot of the journeys were never begun and who knows what the price was for the children from the journeys never begun. >> i think that is right. this is the spirit behind our teach to lead work where we've worked all over the country to bring together teacher leaders to develop innovative projects.

certainly as we think about the guidance we will put out around title 2, we'll highlight the kinds of flexibility at the state and local level that helped the probljects to thrive. certainly looking forward to ways we can further encourage the local space for innovation it is a shared commitment. >> thank you whitehouse. senator murray, do you have any concluding remarks? >> thank you, mr. chairman, i just want to comment on the so called summative reading. i know there has been discussion about that, under our bill, states are required to develop accountability systems that hold schools accountable using multiple measures to judge school performance. the states are required to do that, because we wanted to make sure that we have better information to help states determine which schools are high performing and which ones need support and to provide that information to parents as well,

the bill also requires states to identify their lowest performing five % of schools, high schools with graduation rates, at or below 67% and schools with consistently under performing subgroups so i did want to just clarify that. i appreciate your response to that. i think we want to make sure this bill works, we want to make sure parents have information, schools have information, and the resources flow in the direction that we need them to go to. i appreciate your response. >> thanks. >> thank you, senator murray. i would like to put in the record a letter from the network for public education. deer senator alexander, when every school succeeds act, our organization gave it qualified support. we would have appreciated the mandated testing. we believe parents, citizens and teachers would have a greater voice in the creation of their state school accountability system. we're deeply disappointed in the

proposed regulations put forth by secretary king. it is apparent he is seeking through regulation to maintain federal control of state accountability systems despite the clear intent of the law, we believe he is attempting to rewrite the law and extend federal over reach in some cases that was under no child left behind. we'll include this in the record with specific items. mr. secretary, i thank you will for coming and listening, i think that if i understood you correctly about the timeline that senator murray mentioned, that i mentioned, that states can expect to have more flexibility in terms of a transition year than a year of implementation and then a year of identifying schools and the regulation would appear to offer and if this is the case, i hope you'll make that clear to states soon. i think if you do that, that will be seen as a welcome demonstration of flexibility and the fact that you're actually listening to the feed back that

you're getting in comments on the regulation. would you expect that before long you would make that clear? >> well, again -- >> or is that what you just did? >> i think i have but the key question that i hope states will comment on is in the schools that they are providing additional support in 17-18, how they will identify those schools. will it be carrying over the schools from 16-17, will that be schools that are newly identified using the existing system? or schools that are identified using the new indicators if they are available. this is a place where we've made clear to state chiefs and to others that we're eager for folks feed back and look forward to responding to that comment in the final regulation. >> and one other, just general thought, and let me use common core as an example as senator roberts is talking. sometimes when i say we repeal the common core mandate, some people said to me, there really

wasn't a common core mandate and the answer to that is well, there really was in effect because while you didn't say every state has to adopt common core, you said, the secretary said at the time, in order to get a waiver from the requirements of no child left behind, you've got to adopt challenging standards that are common to a significant number of states or get your state university system to do it and in effect, about the only way to meet that requirement was to adopt common core and that is what 30 out of the 42 states who got their waivers did. so i would caution you against any attempt in the regulation to do as senator roberts was doing, a two step. you said very clearly, just as the law says, state sets their own academic standards, but if the regulation makes it look like, that you could reject the evidence and by rejecting the

evidence, reject the standard, well, then, that goes around the door. do you envision that, that you would say to kansas that you may set your standard but we don't like the evidence you use to set it so we reject the standard. >> no, what we're trying to do in the regulations is describe the long standing peer review process around states review process around states having high quality assessments that align with their standards. if there's a lack of clarity, we want to emphasize that and we're open to adding language that makes it even more clear. >> i would appreciate that. one place to look might be to look at the word demonstrate as opposed to the word assure. that word was carefully chosen. demonstrate means prove it to us that you did it. those are different words. so i appreciate you response. i think that's a constructive

response. i think this has been a good hearing and i appreciate you coming. this is the fourth hearing we've had on the implementation of this act and i'll conclude it the way i started. we want this act to succeed, we'd like for you to succeed. and we would like for the teachers and the school board members and the parents around the country to have the same feeling about this law at the end of last year that they did at the end of last year, which was one they were placed to see that senator murray and others, as well as the republicans on the committee came to a consensus, resolved our differences, created a period of stability and restored more responsibility to the people closest to the children. and if we could end the year with that same sort of feeling, why you u will have done a really good job, so will the president and so will we and we can step back and let the teachers and the school boards and the states have this new era of invasion. the hearing record will remain open for ten business days.

members may submit additional information and questions to our witnesses for the record within that time if they would like. that would be you. thank you for being here today. the committee will stand adjourned.

c-span's washington journal

live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up thursday morning, michelle egan, a fellow for the wilson center and international service professor at american university will join us to discuss the diplomatic fallout from britain's vote last week to leave the european union. and the reporter for national journal will be on talking about legislative efforts to repeal and replace the affordable care act, including the republican's alternative bill. and rachel bay will discuss the findings in the report issued by republican on the select committee on benghazi. that committee investigated the september 11th, 2012 attack on the u.s. consulate. we will also talk about the committee democrats dissents report and the responses by the white house and former secretary of state hillary clinton and her presidential campaign. be sure to watch beginning live at 7:00 eastern on thursday

morning. join the discussion. the transprask partnership is a trade agreement that was reached last year between the u.s. and 11 other pacific rim nations. thursday u.s. trade representative michael froman makes the case for the agreement at an event. life at 9:00 a.m. eastern here at c-span3. homeland security secretary jeh johnson testifies at an oversight hearing on thursday. we'll ahere before the committee 0 on his agency's counter terrorism efforts and the recent attack in orlando. life coverage on c-span 2. on july 1st, 1976 the smithsonian's national air and space museum opened its doors to the public. friday marks the 40th anniversary of the museum and

american history east coverage starts at 6:00 om. we'll see the spirit of st. louis, plus live events at the front of the build. learn mer more about the museum as we talk with its director, the museum cure yart and valley neal. the 40th anniversary of the smithsonian air and space museum live friday evening beginning at 6:00 p.m. on c-span3's american history tof. now a discussion on u.s. trade spolcy and the impact of the transpacific partnership agreement. u.s. trade representative michael froman spoke at the bretton woods committee annual meeting, a gathering on stability. this portion of the event is two

hours. >> it's a great pleasure to have ambassador mike froman with us here today. he is one of the key players in the world on international trade and he has a lot of things going, tpp and asia, trying to get approval for that. also ttip in europe and the fact he has an eu negotiator coming here tomorrow to talk with him. not to speak of trying to work on an investment treaty with china. mike has done a great job, as i said, in his present role but he also was in the white house the first obama term working on international economic affairs, advising the president.

i had a good chance to work with him both on the fta, the korean free trade agreement as well as negotiations with brazil. and so we're very fortunate that he's with us here today. so mike, would you please come up and then we'll have some questions yards. afterwards. [ applause ] >> thanks very much, bill. and it's an honor to be here to talk about the importance of u.s. leadership at this distinguished group. i think the title for this previous session of multilateral cooperation in a turbulent world seems to be particularly timely at the moment. in many parts of the global economy, growth is uneven and weak. in china progress on reform seems uncertain. russia and brazil face head

winds. and in europe, the lingering effects of the financial crisis and now the vote by the british people to leave the european union, these are turbulent times indeed. one of the greatest concerns that we have is that in the last couple of years global trade has slowed, rather than driving growth trade is groig at a lower pace than the economy. if full employment is to be achieved in a peaceful world with standards of living. those are not my words. those are the words of henry morgan at the bretton woods conference but they continue to resonate today. here at home we've been growing for the longest uninterrupted period in recorded history and we're doing so at the high end of the spectrum among industrialized economies. over the last six years we've added 14 million new jobs and cut unemployment from 10% to under 5%. plfring output at an all-time

high and our sixth consecutive year of net manufacturing job growth, the longest uninterrupted streak since the 1960s, adding 650,000 manufacturing jobs to the u.s. economy. and wages have finally begun to tick up, 2.5% last year. they seem to be on the same track this year. again, too little, too slowly but at least it's a positive trend. still there's a great deal of anxiety out there. evidence in the current election dynamic in the united states, not the mention much of the developed world. and some of that is certainly rooted in economics. between the changing composition of jobs in the united states, 15 years of wage stagnation and rising income and equality, there's a concern that the system may be working for a few but not the many. that the game is rigged. and that other countries don't follow the same rules we do but instead act unfairly. that the economic recovery of the last six or seven years

hasn't found its way to many americans. it's important that we not ignore these concerns. they're real and legitimate and the question is what do we do about them. most economists tell you that automation has more to do with the changing workforce than globalization but certainly both contribute. the problem is that we don't get to vote on automation. nobody votes on the next generation of computers, nobody votes on when the next generation of of robots should be deployed. nor do we get to vote on globalization. it's a process made possible by shipping, the spread of broad band, the opening of economies that have been closed to the rest of the world and are now integrated. global sly zags is a force that you can't wish away or put the genie back in the bottle. what we get to vote on are trade agreements. they become the vessel on which

people poor their anxieties. they become the magnets of concern for a much broader and largely unrelated set of factors. but trade agreements aren't the cause of the problems i've alluded to. they can be part of the solution to them, along with other sound economic, and domestic policies, such as investment in infrastructure, education and training. trade agreements allow us to shape globalization to our advantage. they're the vehicle which reflect our interests and our values. we start from the fact that the u.s. already has one of the most open economies in the world. in large part because decisions made decades ago and supported by 12 president sets, six of whom happen to be democrats and six of whom happen to be republicans. the average apply tariff is less than 1.5% and we don't use regulations as a disguised barrier for trade. but abroad we see markets that

are shaded by tariffs. with the transpacific partnership we remove the barriers, raise standards and as a result increase our export related jobs which pay 18% more on arch. right now we compete with low wage countries all over the world and the question is what are we going to do about it. tpp will open up some of the largest and fastest growing economies to our agricultural products and service exports. it will for the first time take a comprehensive approach to imposing disciplines on state owned interprices so when they compete against our private firms -- [ no audio ].

>> the principles of open market share responsibility and shared benefits. and the rules based system put in place then allowed japan and the countries throughout europe to rebuild themselves after the war, allowed developing countries like south korea and brazil, and it helped lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. adds successful as it's been with we kpt take that system for granted. we cannot be complacent about it or expect it to endure if we turn inward because there are alternatives being promoted. alternatives that are more statist in nature. our perspective, it's very

important that we maintain and strengthen the rules based system where all countries are expected to play by the same set of rules. and if they don't, where there's fair and equitable distribution in disputes. it's key to ensuring that the global economy is working for our workers, farmers, wanchers and businesses. and it's critically important that we're not just sitting on the sidelines but shaping the global economy in a way that reflects our interests and values. if the united states were to turn inward, the result would be devastati devastating. protectionism didn't work. raising tariffs on our trading partners would leave those country to respond in kind and block our exports. that is a trade war and no one wins a trade war. turning to protectionism would not increase employment, it

would reduce it. it wouldn't boost economic growth. and we know this from experience. in 1930 congress passed and president herbert hoover signed the tariff act which essentially walled out the united states from imports. the thinking was that would lead to a resurgence of manufacture egg and employment in the united states. we had the great depression. the high tariffs worsened the great depression, and led to the rise of nationalism in europe. the economics stakes of isolationism are clear but so are the strategic stakes. we jekting the tpp would undermined the leadership. our allies around the world couldn't help be question if we have the wherewithal to make good. if you're not prepared to deal

when it comes to cars and services and agriculture, can we depend on you when it comes to security and military arrangements. the good news is that as i meet with members of congress, they're benefitting. the costs of delay are high. we see our market share and priority products eroded by other countries. the peterson institute estimated that a one-year delay of putting tpp in place would impose a $194 billion dollars cost. that equates to a $700 tax on every american household. if we don't get it done soon the other countries aren't going to sit around and wait for us. as new zealand's president put it, these economies are not going to sit still. beijing will step in to fill the

void. not surprisingly, it doesn't raise labor and environmental standards, doesn't impose disciplines. it doesn't require to free flow of data across the borders and it doesn't strengthen intellectual property rights protections. i always ask opponents of tpp a simple question, do they think we're better off living in a world where those are the rules of the road. the choice isn't between tpp and the status quo. it's between tpp and what's likely to evolve in the absence of tpp and that cannot be in the interest of american workers, farmers, ranchers and businesses thar than moving ahead with tpp. pierre, the minister who represented france at bretten wood said to govern is to choose. today we can write the rules of the road for 40% of the global economy or leave that job to others who values and interests

don't necessarily align with ours. we can mo forward or walk away and be remembered as the generation that inflicted a crippling wound. china is executing on its strategy, the one belt one road initiative, the asia infrastructure and other regional initiatives. we are one vote away from cementing our leadership in the asia pacific region or seating that role to others. it's that simple. and that doesn't strike me as being a difficult choice. before i stop i would like to say a few words about the aftermath of the vote in the eu. our relationship with the uk will remain special and the relationship with the eu will remain strong and denduring, we're eval wauatinevaluating. we've made a lot of progress on the agreement during the last

eight months and our goal remains to continue working with e ux to have a high standard agreement this year. to do so we're going to have a creative pragmatic approach to resolving the outside issues, not ideology. the europeans have a lot on their plate, the brexit vote, the migrant crisis and other difficult issues and we sympathize with them and hope that they can summon the needed focus and political will to get this done. indeed, there's more at stake now than ever before given the questions being raised about the nature and future of the european union. can the eu deliver for its people. can it take the bold actions necessary to promote the kinds of growth in jobs clearly being demanded across europe and create the future opportunities its young people in particular need to thrive. will the eu be able to play a leadership role in defending the open rules based system raising the standards for the global

economy. it's very much in the interest of the united states that we have the strongest possible europe as a partner, capable of working together with us to pursue our shared interests and values. that's true in the economic arena and equally true across a range of strategic matters. turbulence is often unavoidable. the question is how to manage it. there's a great deal of stake in this answer to that question. over the years there's been no more important voice for the responsible management of turbulence than the brettonwood committee and i look forward to working with you through this important period. thanks very much. [ applause ] >> thank you, mike, for making, as always, a very positive case

for the transpacific partnership as well . i have a few questions for you before i turn it over to the audience. is there's confusion to some of the statements that president obama made when he was obviously trying to help prime minister cameron to get the main option adopted by the british people and she talked about being at the -- uk being at the end of the line with the discussions with the ex-u. he was very positive on the special relationship with the eu. do you see it as a possibility that you could be negotiating with both the eu as well as the uk at the same time or does one need to come before the other or this is something that has to be worked out based on what happens over the coming weeks and months? >> i think you probably answered the question yourself.

our focus is on negotiating these platform agreements, tpp and ttip. both are open to parties able and willing to meet the standards. that's where our focus is. obviously there's a lot to be worked out between the uk and the eu in the coming weeks and month to determine how they're going to interact with their respective trading partners. >> i think moving on to asia and the transpacific partnership, so many progress has been made by you and your equivalents in asia over the last years, months. one of the problems that a lot of people see -- i was in a meeting recently with some of the chief trade people both under president clinton and president bush. and when they see the statements of the major candidates, hillary clinton, who at one point i sat next to her when she made a comment a few years ago that

this was sort of the golden, let's say, possibility for a trade agreement tpp. but she has come out against it. bernie sanders very much and obviously donald trump. and so how do you see that affecting the congressional vote? it's one thing for candidates to say something, you know, when they're running for office for an election, presidential election. it's another the impact that they will have on congress going forward when this vote takes place. >> look. i think i'm spending a lot of time time up on capitol hill meeting individually with members of congress and groups of members of congress. the good news is that fundamentally members of congress are focused on what's the impact of the agreement, what's the impact of not approving the agreement on the

constituents and key stakeholders. as we walk through, there's a very good reception on their behalf for what they see there. it goes to the issue of timing as well. one example. australia has a free trade agreement already with japan. so australia beef experts to japan face a lower tariff than we do. as a result, our market share is declining in japan. the longer we wait to approve tpp, the wider that differential will be, the more we'll lose market share. already we're losing $125 million of exports each year that will only grow in time. members of congress from rural areas, who has beef producers in their district, hear it, understand that, hear it most importantly from their cattlemen, it tends to focus their attention on how they're

going to get it done and when. multiply that by dozens or sectors and countries. we're building the support there, we're answering questions, we're working with congressional leadership. i think at the end of the day they're confident the votes will be there. but we've got to get it done this year. >> final question i have and then we ale turn it other to the audien audience. as you know, there's a lot of support for an investment treaty with china. how do you see that fitting in this possibility and you were just in china and i know you were talking with the chinese about this with the whole tpp effort? >> it's on a parallel track. we'ved a negotiations in the last three years in earnest as we've negotiated on a negative list basis and protecting investments at all stage in the process. those negotiations are continuing.

i was in china recently as you said and had conversations with the leadership there then. the chinese have been here since and have given us a new version of their negative list which we're evaluating. the key thing is it's got to be a high standard agreement. and that means it has to effectively open up china's economy and move it from a world in which everything is prohibited or regulated unless it's explicitly improved to one in which everything is approved and les explicitly regulated. i think we're always going to have to deal with issues that have come up in the particular environment that china presents for investment, issues that our investors have had there over the years. we're going to mike sure we have to deal with that as well in the agreement. >> do you think they're going to wait around to see what happens with tpp before they get serious in doing anything in.

>> i think all indications is that they're taking the process seriously. they're putting a lot of effort into it and i think they would like to try to get it done. >> what i would like to do is right there, is to go to the audience. because i think i'd like to get a lot of participation here before mike has to leave. so can we have a microphone over there right up front here first? right there. >> robeif the purpose of the tr agreements is to stimulate our exports more than imports, will you expect to see the ratio of our exports rise versus the imports that come to your nation if these are passed? >> since i'm in the halls of the imf filled with much better economists than i could ever aspire to be, i would simply say

that most economists tell you there are a lot of factors that go into trade balances and current account balances and putting relative growth rates. it's hard to inpoint in particular. impact of a trade agreement on a particular balance. what i would say since our average applied tariff is 1.4%, just to give you a few examples, we face 70% tariffs on autos, 55% on machinery, 38.5% on pork, sometimes 100% on certain agricultural products, all of which need to be eliminated or greatly reduced. we could expect to see more exports. and we're going to be lowering our barriers very little. others are going to lower their barriers in a significant way and at the same time raising standards. >> the lady in the back right there right by the microphone.

>> thank you very much. and i have two quick questions. one is in the light of the bretton woods conversation, these pleural lateral agreements seem to be in contradiction to the whole philosophy the wto organization, whereas, you know, by avoiding or not use the wto forum. the second question is the concern about the state dispute resolution mechanism in which a corporation issues to a state if somehow their expected profits aren't gained. could you speak to those two topics? >> first the multilateralism, we continue to believe that multilateral trade level vie dags is the highest and best trade levelization. but they've reached a deadlock.

and that's why bamly in two and a half years ago and in nairobi in december the wto moved forward with a multilateral trade facilitation agreement. in nairobi, an agreement on agriculture. but also a recognition that there was no longer a consensus that the doha should continue as is and that we could focus on creative ways of dealing with outstanding issues but also new issues, whether it's ec commerc. when you've got two thirds of the global economy beginning to get their head oornd a certain set of rules, you know, work the

difficult issues domestically that allow them to open the markets, it gives momentum to the process. we would like to see the rules multilateralized. that is the goal. right now is the most open frank honest discussion going on at the wto in 15 years with ministers and our ambassadors in geneva are asking what is it that we can get done multilaterally, with the goal that other countries would be able to join over time. and when the circumstances are right you can ultimately multilateralize it. on investor state dispute management, interesting tpp over the years -- got to give the one-minute background. there are 33 agreements that have state disputes. u.s. is party to 51 of them.

since 2000 we've been working in all of our subsequent agreement to reform the isps process by raising standards, tightening them up, adding a whole series of procedural safeguards and then closing loopholes where we found them. one of those issues is when you mentioned in tpp, it makes clear the fact that you cannot sue on the basis of disappointed expectations in regard to profits. in itself that alone is not a basis for a suit. that's when two dozen reforms in the agreement that help make sure that ifcs is being used the way it was intended to be used for, which is when the government comes in but is not being used in ways it was not intended for. >> yes, back there. yes. >> thank