I strongly urge you to abandon this scheme. The second part is the accountability proposal. Let me note there are policies in this proposal we are pleased to see. That is how states set longterm goals. In a number of ways the bad habits for making decisions that must be left to states. This is troubling given the laws specific prohibitions. Years, states grappled with a rigid accountability system. The every Student Succeeds act turns the page on that bill and restores these decisions back to state and local leaders. I urge you to adopt a proposal that follows the law. Were raising his concerns because it is important for the law as written by congress to be faithfully executed. We are concerned because we want to ensure every child is the best chance to receive a quality education. We cannot go back to the days when federal government dictated national policy. It didnt work then. It wont work now. The department refuses to follow the letter of the law you will prevent state leaders from doing what is right for their School District. You will deny superintendence the ability to manage schools in the way that meets the needs of their local communities. You make it harder for teachers to serve the best interest of the student in their classrooms. Hear from these individuals. They represent the people we want to empower. Every child deserves an excellent education. On the way to do that is to restore state and local control. That is what the act is intending to do. We will use every tool in our disposal. The that, i recognize Ranking Member bobby scott for his opening remarks. Mr. Scott thank you. To enact this law last year. I look forward to the dialogue with both secretary king and the panel of expert witnesses concern in the ongoing efforts to provide states and School Districts with clarity and guidance necessary to ensure effective implementation of the every Student Succeeds act. I am proud of our collective efforts to have a strong bipartisan law worthy of the president s signature. Doing so with no small feat. Is only oneslation step of many. The filling the promise of the every Student Succeeds act rests in successful and limitations that honors the longstanding intent. The intent to support and promote and protect at all levels of government the right of an Educational Opportunity for every child regardless of race, language, sadness, or ability. Ofre is much decisionmaking the state and local levels, but it is not a blank check. There are important guardrails that districts are required to take action when students arent learning. Districts get to decide which actions are most appropriate in each of the unique contexts. Taking some action is not negotiable. Regulatory framework is necessary to ensure that this chicks are getting the job done, and taking action required by federal law. The regulations empower states and local districts to fully comply with the federal law. Getting this right is hard work. The federal government has an Important Role to play. To thank the department of education under the leadership of them acting secretary king for moving soak fleet to provide feedback, and necessary clarity to Community Members through the proposed regulations. I also want to commend the secretary for their transparency and continued collaboration with the members of this committee throughout the process. The department has demonstrated commitment to fulfilling its regulatory responsibilities is critical to helping state and School Districts move over. Ism this point, there considerable agreement. Some stakeholder groups originally urged that there be no regulatory framework, those same groups in combination with others on the negotiated rulemaking panel reached an agreement on the proposed assessment regulatory text. I want to thank members of that panel, for working and making compromises to reach consensus on proposed regulations to some of the most contentious issues in the entire law. Serves as as powerful affirmation of the need for the clarity and direction that the regulations provide. Department, the recently released this proposed regulatory text for accountability, intervention, data reporting, and consolidated state when developing. Again, i want to thank the secretary for moving so quickly. Many individuals and groups clarity ondditional these issues. The department he did those requests. The department has done so in the past. Im sure the robust dialogue with all stakeholders, including congress, will inform revisions and improvement in the proposal during the 60 day Comment Period , which closes august 1. I look forward to hearing from todays experts. Federal Government Works to meaningfully engage the diverse stakeholders to implement the new law, state and local leaders must use the clarity provided by the federal regulations to work collaboratively with allstate holders all stakeholders. The upcoming election will usher in a new administration, with less than six months before the transition secretary kings time is winding down. With this upcoming change, School Districts need the consistency and dependability to have regulations. I look forward to hearing from the secretary about his efforts to put in place a meaningful regulatory framework. Improveattempt to educational integrity. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and i yelled back. Chairman kline pursuant to committee rules, all members can submit written statements. Without objection, the record will remain open for 14 days to allow other statements and extraneous materials to be submitted. Now, my pleasure to introduce our distinguished witness, secretary. Asare glad to have you hear mr. Scott said. Last time you were here youre the acting secretary. Congratulations on becoming the official secretary of the department of education. Yourbody here knows background. We are delighted that you are here. I will ask you now to raise your right hand and do solemnly swear from her testimony will be the truth, and nothing but the truth. Sec. King i do. Chairman kline let the record show that he answered in the affirmative. Let me just remind you of the lighting system. It will apply pretty gidly to myy ri colleagues, not to you. Give your testimony as you see fit. It is been a long time since i secretary fornet speaking too long. But if youll try to wrap up in a reasonable time because were getting a surprising number of members to show up considering that the house adjourned. Im sure there was a race to the airport sometime early this morning. I want to make sure all my colleagues have a chance to engage in the conversation. Mr. Secretary . Sec. King thank you very much, chairman kline and Ranking Members of the committee. I appreciate the invitation to come back before this committee. We are discussing how we move forward with the the every Student Succeeds act, which the president signed into law in 2015. I am grateful that thanks to the leadership of chairman klein and Ranking Member scott and members of this committee, congress act it to reauthorize this critical piece of legislation. Hardworking educators, supported by families, our schools has made tremendous strides. High School Graduation rate is at an alltime high. Schools and 49 states are helping meet standards and assessing their progress. More states are investing more money in helping make sure that children are ready to succeed when they enter kindergarten. Yet, so much work remains. Far too many students still arrive at college needing remedial classes. Black and hispanic students continue to lag behind their peers in achievement and Graduation Rates. Our latest data illustrate powerful and troubling ways the disparities in opportunity and experience for different groups of students. Few statistics. Students with disabilities are twice as likely to be suspended. High concentrations of black or latino students are less likely to offer advanced courses like oculus, or physics which are also critical for success in college. 15 High School Students are english language learners. These are the very children that the elementary and secondary didstion act of 1965 wa was designed to protect and serve. Local communities and states have a pathway towards equity for all students. These are tools that will help them get there. Using the greater flexibility, they can go beyond test scores by adding their own indicators. ,hat will ensure a rigorous wellrounded education. We know strong literacy and math skills are necessary for successful stop they are not sufficient. Importantly, a rigorous wellrounded education helps make critical connections among learning ine school. And the skills they need to become the sophisticated thinkers and leaders who will follow the most pressing challenges facing our communities. Work requiresthis all of us, state are expected to educators,al business leaders, and other state cultures in choosing indicators of quality such as decreasing chronic absenteeism or students taking and passing advanced classes. This also includes protections and Additional Resources for traditionally underserved students. Lowents of color, from income families, learning english, native american students, foster and homeless youth, and migrant and seasonal farm working children. The state must take meaningful steps to improve schools where groups are struggling and there are low Graduation Rates. The bucks ability allows them to tailor these interventions to schools specific and needs. As with all policies, the fidelity of implementation is critical to success. Allow me to update you on our progress. The first thing we did was listen. We have convened over 200 meetings across the state. This included dozens of meetings and educators in rural suburban communities across the country. We posted a notice seeking Public Comment on areas in need of regulation for thought we requested the back on areas in need of guidance. In response, we prioritize accountability and data reporting. We had assessment under title i and title is requirement that federal dollars supplement nonsupplant state and local funds. This past spring we negotiated with rulemaking on title ix part a assessment. Input weiate the received. We reached consensus on this estimate. Enforceont know how to the laws. We are considering how best to address the feedback we received. Month, we issued our notice of proposed rulemaking on accountability, state plans, and data recording. We encourage comment on those proposed regulations. Consistent with the strong civil rights legislation, this ensures a focus on all students for the making sure to follow some students for accountability. And making sure meaningful action is taken for low performing schools the families, educators, and stakeholders. It ensures students and families accurate picture of academic performance. I announced the department would issue nonregulatory guidelines in key areas concerning student with foster care, and English Learners. These areas has raised has been raised as priority issues. I am happy to report that we released guidelines for children in foster care this morning. This includes protections for foster youth because of their mobility. They lagged behind their peers academically. Our guidance clarifies the new statutory requirements for children in foster care for collaboration. It highlights promising examples to guide implementation. We plan issue guidance. The department is also working on guidance as they implement title ii, and the provisions around Early Learning post at our aim with these documents will be to highlight examples and best practices. Noted at the top, we have made incredible progress over the past several years. There is more to be done. It provides the set Story Foundation to close those gaps and address our inequities. I am pleased to hear feedback on this committee today and look forward to working with all of you to ensure highquality implementation of this law, supported by the department. Thank you, i am happy to answer your questions. Chairman kline thank you, mr. Secretary. I would be happy to start that feedback now. Am partially quoted some of your remarks from february my opening statement. Came in response to my request that you commit to regulating in a way consistent with the statute. You said make sure i have it right you can trust we will letter of the laws removed for the new regulations, and provide guidance to state and district and districts. Our intent is to Work Together with you and gather input as we move forward. Proposalsrned your are not consistent with that commitment. The questions i, and others have, will reflect those concerned. I want to talk to you about the supplement not supplant proposal. Theou know, we asked Research Service to review the proposal. They agreed that your proposal would likely be illegal. Plainaid based on the language of the above provisions with the legislative history and statutory scheme as a whole, it seems unlikely that congress. 1. 1. 8. B toction 1 establish regulations that would require expenditures to exceed those of nontitle i a schools. I would like you to respond to those conclusions. As of the plain language does not require equalized spending. Explain, beyond the talking point already heard, a plain reading . The Historical Context for supplement not supplant is important. That language was added to the report that naacp your federal dollars are being used to back state and local responsibilities to High Need Schools. Particularly, it helps those with color. That is the history of that language was of the language clearly must mean that the federal dollars are intended to be a supplemental. We know that there are districts is spent on schools serving affluent students. With thenconsistent very word supplement nonsupplant. Our proposal seeks to ensure that we enforce the law as written. That the funds are truly supplemental for the we received feedback about the process. We adjusted the proposal from that negotiation. We have continued to receive feedback and input from stakeholders since the completion of the negotiated rulemaking sessions. To movingrward forward in a way that is responsive to what we have received. I thank you for the response. However, the point i want to get at is that the statute, the p lain language, is clear. Theoesnt say that secretary is allowed to decide on his own with the intent of the history of this was. He language is very clear. That is what the service said. Ask aboutwant to your accountability proposal. My concern is that you are deliberately attempting to increase the schools identified for interventions beyond what was identified in the statute. Five years from now what percentage do you anticipate will be identified for comprehensive and targeted support . The proposal seeks to ensure that states have the opportunity to broaden their definition of Educational Excellence. To introduce indicators of performance beyond just english and math performance, and Graduation Rates. It creates the opportunity for states to set goals and targets for performance. It requires that states and districts intervene when schools are in the bottom 5 of performance when they are struggling with particular subgroup performances. Lowwhen schools have Graduation Rates. The number of schools that will be identified dependent how states use that flexibility. Clearly, a priority in the law was to ensure that states act meaningfully in schools that are struggling. That is what the regulations require. Chairman kline as you point out, you dont know. That is not a surprise, how many schools would fall into that category. The department is doing some analysis of this as it goes forward. So, would you please commit to providing that analysis to us so we can see how this is going to unfold . I am afraid, right now, we are early. That is why i am glad you are here. Anlooks like there is attempt to increase the number of schools identified for interventions. We want to look at that analysis. Intent of thee statute. We need to see that number go up. We wrote the language specifically. Yield for questions to mr. Scott. Mr. Scott i would like to submit to the record documents civiled yesterday by 31 Rights Groups calling for stronger accountability regulations. Anohter letter from the leadership identifying the regulatory obligations to protect the civil rights of all students, including the supplement not supplant. Chairman kline without objection. Mr. Scott thank you. Proposedtary, the the regulations, what is the purpose . Sec. King the purpose is rust to gather input from stakeholders. We want to hear from educators, parents, civil rights organizations, tribal leaders, the business community, communitybased organizations working with young people. We will gather that input. We will address it. We want input from members of congress. We appreciate this opportunity to gather feedback. That will attempt to reflect the response we received. Mr. Scott you mentioned supplement not supplant. The upper 30 of education was a right which must be made available on equal terms. If a locality is chronically underfunding certain schools, is there not an obligation to come up with some appropriate equitable funding outside of the essa . Sec. King absolutely. Mr. Scott that would mean you would supplement over what your legal obligation is . Is that right . Sec. King thats right. Mr. Scott can you say a word you identify,ow students that all received the support they need. Some Schools Look Like they are doing ok. Some groups are not performing. Sec. King we have been careful to try to ensure that schools do not fall for the cracks for stub we dont want students to the cracks. Theregulations give states opportunity to set meaningful goals and target. It requires them to intervene where schools are not making overall progress. So, we will be vigilant in ensuring that states respond. And, states must intervene where subgroups are struggling, and schools are on the bottom 5 . Do their interventions to theymprove performance, need to intensify those interventions. Mr. Scott you mention the bottom 5 . There is some suggestion that the Data Collected will not allow you to rank schools. Schools, howrank do you ascertain the bottom 5 . The king that is one of reasons the regulations require a summative rating. Approach that could very. Some may use a numerical index. Categorical labels for different sets of schools. Law requires that state intervene in the bottom 5 . It will need to have a waiting to get to the bottom 5 . Scott i mr. Onquested a study segregation in Public Schools k 12. Thereport found that recent increase in racial and socioeconomic segregation. It is getting worse. We have asked for hearings. What can essa do to reduce racial and socioeconomic segregation . Sec. King we are deeply concerned about the lack of progress has brown versus board of education. Laces run the country we are seeing increased socioeconomic and racial isolate places around the country we are seeing socioeconomic segregation. As a command how they will create a strategy to promote school diversity. School diversity a priority in our competitive grant program. Proposed ant has initiative called stronger together. Senator murphy and i was woman fudge are helping us to advance udge areesswoman f helping that. Using the Magnet Schools Program to support local efforts to increase school diversity. We know that for low income students they can do better in schools that are socioeconomically diverse. We know we want to prepare all of our young people for success in a diverse society. Thank theline gentleman, dr. Fox you recognize. Foxx secretary king, welcome to the committee. I want to return to the supplement not supplant conversation. In 2011 the department issued a brief with the repair ability for title i schools. The proposal is analogous to the yourtments traffic is stop please provide the estimated cost in state and local dollars of compliance with the proposal put forward by the department during negotiated rulemaking . Sec. King i would make a distinction in the way the question was framed between comparability and supplement not supplant. Supplement not supplant addresses the issue of allocation of state and local funding. The proposal that was discussed in negotiated rulemaking and adjusted would require states to comply with the supplement parts of the law. That would be determined by the district. There is not a single number that can be estimated today. As i say, it is adjusted throughout thes rulemaking. We will continue to adjust the proposal based on the input we have received since then. Ms. Foxx how can they put forward a regulatory proposal without understanding the Financial Impact . How can the public evaluate its wisdom without such information . Is. King the requirement that the federal dollars per used in a way that is supplemental. Languagethe very supplement not supplant is intended to separate the issue of the use of federal funds from state and local. Fundss state and local should be allocated in a way that is equitable. The federal funds should be separate supplemental. Ms. Foxx the Compliance Costs similar to yours would be 8. 5 billion. Do you think that is a reasonable estimate . Sec. King again, the design of the proposal was to implement the requirement in the statutes. The federal dollars will be used in a way that is have a mental for some districts have a responsibility to ensure that they are not using those federal dollars to backfil state and local funds. The extent they are today to back the state and local funds is not consistent with the very words supplement not supplant. Foxx let me focus on how they would comply with the proposal. The 2011 report indicates that the largest district would increase spending by anywhere from less than 1 to as much as 20 . The committee specifically how School District unable to increase spending by these amounts could comply with your proposal . The frame ofain, the question suggests that districts today are using the federal dollars and a way that backfils local and state responsibilities. The requirement would be for districts to ensure theyre not doing that. The state and local funds are allocated in a reasonable fashion and allows the federal dollars to be used to supplement. To the extent that a district is more in a school serving affluent kids than serving high needs kids and cant possiblyat be consistent with the very words supplement not supplant. The adjustment they need to make is one that is required by the statute. Xx if School District a forced to change teacher hiring policies, and find a legal and Contractual Authority to do so in order to comply with the proposal, School District rather more principles will assume personnel hiring duties. Tell us how this would benefit low income students, who we know that effective greater staffing economy can be one of the most effective ways to increase Student Outcomes . Sec. King if today districts are using the federal dollars in a way that is not supplemental, and they need to correct that, they can do that in different ways. They can create incentives for or highly effective teachers for so they could invest in prek programs. They could ensure the High Need School has access to counselors. Could launch advanced coursework. The reassignment of teachers is not a requirement of the proposal. As a general matter, i dont think anyone supports forced transfers. That is not required. Required that the federal dollars are used in a way that this supplemental. Chairman kline miss davis, your recognize. You, mr. good to see secretary. He probably got to bed a little bit later than you did. I wanted to followup with the Ranking Member. Just, about the end size, the number of students we group and then evaluate. I think there are some concerns that students, perhaps in special education, for example, might not be really anperly seen within accountability system. Could you comment on that . Ar example, the 28, 29 for group, what would that mean . Sec. King we are concerned about issues of size. What we proposed is that states wouldset that, but provide justification to the peer review process if they set a size above 30. The reason we use that is based on Research Evidence in how we ensure we capture subgroups as well. Study that if you had 40 or more you only get to about 32 of students. If you use 30 to get to about 79 . Forsked states justification of the want to go above 30. Feedback that there are groups who are interested in acquiring a justification at a lower end size. We worry about subgroups getting missed. A particular subgroup doesnt get the adequate services to make academic progress. That is never identified. The important elements requiring subgroups, this aggregated disaggregated data. Exactly, we know that is key. In looking back at the way this was done previously, and states moving forward, are you confident that you will be able to have this be a universal standard . It sounds like there is quite a bit of leeway. I wanted to throw that out there. It is a concern. It will be important not to have that slipping. Sec. King that is a very fair concern. The vast majority of states that a are at 30, or lower. We think the peer review process provides an important check on that. Vis i wanted to go to the issue of teacher evaluations. Isknow that the essa it quite clear that this is up to local School District. The i want to talk about language a little bit. Clearly, in this legislation, they want states and School District to do the very best they can in developing programs that engages teachers in the process. In addition, it can help them be better. It can be meaningful for stuff that is where many it can be meaningful. Areas differ. Many where is the federal role now . Within the purview of the essa . Sec. King we think it is important that the every Student Succeeds act preserves the language on equitable distribution of teachers. We have been working with states on equity plans. We are making sure they are well prepared and have a diverse supply of teachers. They are getting teachers to High Need Schools. There are initiatives focused on the necessary teachers of english language learners. Those equity plans is important most of what we states will that adjust those equity points based on the new language that appears. Ourant to make sure that low income students and student of color arent disproportionally taught by teachers who are teaching out of field. So that is an important requirement of essa, and an important principle. Ms. Davis i was equally concerned about how that sharing of information. We know we have here evaluation systems that work very well peer evaluation systems that work very well. I just wanted to mention that. Chairman kline the gentleladys time has inspired. Expired. Onregulations, dr. King, your nomination and appointment as secretary. The couple of comments. Raised education spending, we can never go back. Anything that came in was additional to what we had. Havehe First Time Since i been a congressman, i can walk into an Elementary School and see smiling teachers and a ministry. They do like this bill. I spoke with one of my administrators it is really the implementation of it. That is why we are talking today. Tovoted on a 1000 page rule define one word. I dont think we need that kind of weight on these folks. The department of education is providing grants for the foundation where i live. It has done a great job. I want to revisit a conversation thead in february about indicators of accountability. You said i think we have an opportunity where the states can broaden how they define excellent education was that it can be more focused education. It can be more wellrounded. I was pleased that your proposal did not prescribe weights, or offer a range. Youm concerned about the way wanted to limit the way they weigh. Limitations fit with your commitment to give state an opportunity to broaden how they define success . Sec. King i appreciate the question. We, carefully, consistent with the statute, do not add weights or percentages for different statute. Some require substantial weight for the academic indicators. Those are of much greater weight than the others. We built into the regulations a be of checks that will implemented to the peer review process to ensure states are acting in ways that are consistent with the statutory language. We do think there is tremendous flux ability for s flexibility for states. There is opportunity for states to look at things like whether or not they are providing access to advanced coursework. Effortsstancelearning in tennessee is an example. Very equitable for subgroups of students. Mr. Roe we agree that local control is essential. Secretary, as you know, it require states to include at least one indicator of School Quality or Student Success. The point is to ensure that the state accountability systems are taking into consideration more scores. T test the statute includes a few broad parameters for this indicator. Your proposal goes beyond by requiring this be supported by research that performance or progress on such indicators is likely to increase student achievement. Provide the justification for adding this additional requirement . Is about theis state plan. As they do this work, the indicators are connected to students at longterm success. That is the goal students longterm success. That is the goal. And experts on the panels review those plans. We think it is important to look at the indicators in that context of one quick example, we data i just described, found nationally 13 of students are chronically absent. 13 are missing more than 15 days of school each year. We know that chronic absenteeism is closely related to progress from grade to grade. Example of an indicator that a state might consider. It is up to states to decide what those would be. That is a good one where there is strong evidencebased on the association of that and longterm success. Mr. Roe i think we have a great opportunity to put the fun back in education again. A group of educators and how many would do this job again, and the majority would not. That is not good. This gives us an opportunity to put the fun back in education. Hey hope i hope we dont weigh it down too much. Chairman kline ms. Adams . Ms thank you chairman, and Ranking Member scott and secretary king for joining the committee. I am very proud of the work we have done to get the every Student Succeeds act passed into law. The pass was long overdue. We owed it to our students and families to update this important legislation. Towardork implementation, it is appropriate for us as members of congress to monitor its progress. I am opposed to efforts to undermine the department of education and the spirit of the law. We had our chance to write the law. We should let the process move forward. The federal government has an appropriate role in education policy for stuff i believe this will move Forward Education policy. I believe this will move forward effectively. Federal policies are essential to protect our students from a number of state policies that are ruining the state that has once been a National Leader in education. Since republicans took over the General Assembly passed a number of bills. I was there at a time that i think would dismantle public education. We need to value our educators more. We have some questions about whether or not we do that in north carolina. We pay them less than the national average. Provisions like supplement not supplant a really imperative. North carolina might make even deeper cuts to education. We are concerned about that. Theou can expand on importance of federal funds being used to supplement not supplant. Sec. King at the end of the day, this is a question of ensuring all students have access to a quality education. We know in places where there is disproportionate spending on affluent students, and less spending on high need students, it translates into a real difference. Und thatc data, we fo 1. 6 Million Students that go to a school that has a Police Officer but no school counselor. If you have no school counselor, how will you support needs . How can you ensure they have access to good post secondary planning . We found in many of the schools that serve the largest number of africanamerican and latino students you cant even take a tactless or physics post on how can we ensure diversity in those haves, and that they opportunities, if they dont even offer those classes . That lack of funding translate into lack of educational quality for kids. Oftentimes, student attending title i schools are students of color. He is also makeup, consistently, underperforming subgroups. Do you truly believe that allowing states to choose how this determine success of subgroups will actually result in the improvement of subgroups outcomes . Sec. King i think we have to be vigilant in the peer review process. We need to make sure that states commit to meaningful goals and targets for subgroups. We try to set guardrails around that process. Peer review will be critical. Vigilance will be critical to make sure that states are attentive to the needs of subgroups. Where subgroups are struggling, they need to meaningfully intervene. We know the history. Many have long ignored subgroups. No child left behind didnt even count English Learners at all. We have to be vigilant. We think we set the right guardrails. Adams thinking about the same subgroups, without specifics, how will we hold schools accountable . Sec. King we think the ratings are critical for transparency andparents, teachers, communities host of which schools are struggling, and need that additional support. Also, which schools are excelling and can be models for others. We require transparent reporting on each indicator. We think it is important to have that rating. Good information at the school level any subgroup level. Ms. Adams mr. Chairman, i yield back. Chairman kline mr. Guthrie . I agree that it is what the Founding Fathers intended. It is to have oversight to make sure youre complying with the law. A couple of things, a commissioner from kentucky will be here to speak to us. Know he is concerns about the expedited timeline regarding a proposal. Essa says no child left behinds provisioned and on august the first of this year. The statute says new accountability systems will begin with the 20172018 academic year. It is clear that congress to be a 20162017 transition year. But your transitionbout this when you are here before in february. You answered as we move into 20172018 school year, we are well prepared. Your answer would show that the accountability systems would become active at the beginning of the school year. Proposedtely, what you seems to contradict the statute. Can you make a commitment to us in these this proposal final rule to align the requirement with congressional intent . Sec. King to be clear on the proposal, under the proposed rule that is currently out for comment, there is no state that would need to have their accountability system in place prior to 20172018. The question is, what will we arethen and interested in feedback on the timeline. Is,re eager, as the country to ensure that we move beyond just english and math test scores and Graduation Rates. That we begin to use those other indicators. That is our opportunity to expand the definition of Educational Excellence and we want to move quickly to that expansion. I understand that there are folks that would like to extent extend the focus on the english and math and graduation scores. We are interested in feedback on the timeline and we would like to listen carefully to input. Mr. Guthrie my commissioner will be here to testify and i am sure you will get fight back. , andg on the insides understand that there is information prescribed by law that needs to be provided. We want to make sure that groups are following and we understand the statistics. The statute allows the states to pick that end size. As on is a meet the criteria. We debated and talked about this. Of my you spoke with one colleagues about the information you want. We want you to have that information because we voted to put that into law that the country gets that information. Stateo voted that the could decide on the end size. This seems like you are prescribing an end size of 30 up front which i am not sure where the Statutory Authority is. Sec. King we are not requiring a specific and size. When states submit their plan, if they submit an end size of above 30, that they provide information with respect to why they made that choice. Though regulation preserves the right of states to determine their and size. I do thinkw it will be important in terms of civil rights protection. If the state sets and and size in a way that would ensure that student disabilities would not be counted in the accountability system, that would be problematic. I am sure that the peer review process would respond negatively. Mr. Guthrie maybe i misread that. It seemsefault like the state were able to pick. If states set to end in size an end size that did not comply thank you so i yield back. Gentlemanline the yields back. Bonamici thank you, secretary king. I want to align myself with the comments where they have perceived a real difference in schools where they know the changes have been made. Thank you for the work you are doing along with the department to implement the every Student Succeeds act. And the importance of states assessing their unique needs. I want to followup up on the question that was just ask by mr. Guthrie. I understand to i understand for the need to identify the needs of students. Could discourage states from being innovative. I know the department will work with states to modify their accountability systems and add indicators of data from districts as they become available. A process that could take several years. Nonetheless, asking students asking states to implement accountability systems seems to run the risk of hampering innovation. Can you please discuss the departments alternative . Is there a way we can prevent a gap in Student Support and give aates the time to put in accountability systems that make good use of new data . Sec. King states will be able to use the 1718 as a planning year for those schools that are requiring comprehensive intervention. Ultimately, we are interested in feedback on the timeline questions. Like many educators in schools have a sense of urgency about broadening the indicators that are used for accountability. To the extent that states are prepared to move more quickly to incorporating an indicator like chronic absenteeism or some states have put forward meaningful efforts to reduce disproportionate suspensions were students of color. If states are in a position where they want to introduce those indicators, we would like to see them do that more quickly so they are moving beyond the english and math scores and Graduation Rates. In feedbackested and want to work with states and districts to think through the best timeline. Amici the proposed rule of pierced a focus on only two examples of discrepancies and resources. Considering these inequities, they are important, but i wonder if states and districts would not consider other important inequities including access to advanced coursework, technology, art and music. How would they encourage states and districts to offer a broad array . Sec. King we want to balance wanting to make sure that states do the things that they must but also offering additional options. Language around and accessursework to preschool. We are open to feedback. We are always turned to strike the right balance between state and local equity. We are interested in feedback from states and all and also advocacy organizations. Bonamici the departments proposed rule for accountability systems would give states four options. Participation. One of the options allows the state to provide its own proposal. For states that pursue this wretch, how would your department assist them as they contemplate actions that are less punitive but no less of it if . But no less effective . Ensureng how do we strong parental understanding of the role of assessments in schools . There are reasons why folks have seen over the last decade and increase in assessment in driven ahat has legitimate set of concerts. That is why the Administration Proposed the testing action plan and provided guidance. To support reductions in assessment. That is a feature of the every Student Succeeds act. We want states and districts to take advantage of that. Low level can replace bubble tests with higherquality performancebased assessments, those kinds of efforts will help ensure that states and districts are able to comply with the expectations. Onamici i look forward to working with you on that. Chairman kline mr. Byrne. Byrne i want to remind you that i am a former member of the alabamas deep board of education. All four of my children attended Public Schools in alabama and attended a Magnet School in the city of mobile. Have a great deal of interest in this and i have very High Expectations for the performance of our Public Schools with regard to every student. When you were here before the committee in february, i asked about the phrase consistently underperforming and whose responsibility it was to define the term. I also wrote a followup letter on march the first that you responded to on june 17th. 3. 5 months later. Your response, you pointed to the proposed rulemaking. Before, youe here did not really answer my question. After reading your proposal, i think i understand why. When you were here before, you said i am committed to working with this committee, committed to ensuring the implementation is consistent with the letter of the law. I would say to mr. Secretary that if you are committed to working with mehdi, taking 3. 5 months to answer my letter is not consistent with that remark. Theletter of the law says meaning of consistently underperforming is to be determined by the states. The letter of the law also says that you are prohibited from prescribing the specific tohodology used by states meaningfully differentiate or identify schools under this part. Taken together, the law prohibits you from constraining state flexibility of around the definition of consistently underperforming and yet your proposal does just that. Help me. Violate the statue of your proposed rulemaking and give a definition when the every Student Succeeds act prohibits you from doing so and requires you to leave that up to the states . Sec. King to be clear, in our regulation consistently underperforming is defined by the states using goals and targets at the state would set. Our role, we believe, is to try , which wefeedback did, and based on that input, we put forward a proposed rule that is out for comment. Withre careful to comply the letter of the law and consistently underperforming is left to states to define with their own goals and targets. Doesyrne i think it prescribe. I think you are setting yourself and your department up for a lawsuit that you will lose. I do not know who will file it. I am giving you legislative intent right now. You need to go back and look at your rule because it clearly violates the letter of the statue in provide in prescribing. It needs to leave it totally up to the states. In any way that you prescribed to the states, you are clearly in violation of the statue. I am asking you to go back and look at your rule, it here with a member of this committee that is a strong proponent of this law is telling you. I think if you do, and you are a smart man and a fair man, if you go back and look at it fairly, you are going to see that you are in violation of the statute. I do not want you to be in violation and i do not think you want to be in violation. Consistente a pattern in this administration in putting out regulations after they have been warned that they are in violation of the statue as written by congress. Someone has to file a lawsuit. Here is what happens. ,ou spend a lot of resources the people that filed the lawsuit spends a lot of resources, and every penny spent is anothers is another penny that does not go to a child. To bringery resource to bear to educate children in this country. Someone deep in the bowels of your department or some smart lawyer is taking you in a direction that the statute clearly prohibits you from going. Someone who wants this to work, i am telling you to go back and look at the role. Sec. King appreciate that feedback. We will look at the role. I want to underscore that states will set the goals and targets. Mr. Byrne we will hold that to you we will hold you to that. Mr. Rokita i want to continue with this line of questioning. You recall that under the old rule, we differentiated between target schools and school wide schools. Targeted schools had three test. For schools that have less than 40 low income. The schoolwide group was for more thanwere 40 schools. You it knowledge to you , thewledge that under essa methodology for distributing state and local funds to school should be fair and equitable. Tests rid of the targeted and have the schoolwide tests for all of s and s. Sec. King the dollars are supplemental. Rokita it cool it calls for title i schools to receive as much funding as the average amount received by the districts nontitle i schools. A prohibition in the new law that says you should not applied methodology but yet you do. How are you not in conflict with our legislative intent . Sec. King to clarify on the timeline. We have a proposed rule that was offered a negotiated rulemaking. Feedback was given. The role was adjusted. We continue to receive input and feedback and do not have currently a role out for Public Comment. We anticipate issuing a regulation on this. There is not currently a proposed rule. Mr. Rokita you realize you are in direct conflict. Sec. King we do not prescribe the methodology. The methodology is left to the district. A district could use an approach based on traditional assignment of staff model. We do not prescribe the methodology. Do in there trying to role that was discussed is ensure that districts are in deep using federal dollars in a way that a supplemental and not backfilling. Mr. Rokita do you agree that the only requirement we have in the every Student Succeeds act regarding methodology is that of the fair and equitable and agnostic as to a schools title i status . That was the intent. I helped write this law. That was our legislative intent. I am talking about this new law. Sec. King the language in the new law is quite clear on the notion that the federal dollars will be supplemental. Methodologythe around that the only requirement is that we have to be agnostic as to ease old title i status. To be fair and equitable. The king if they are using dollars in a way that supplements rather than supplants state and local obligations. Testokita a schoolwide and applying it to all of s and s. The only requirement is that a districts method for distributing funds is work it to be agnostic. Sec. King not if they are supplanting. I think there are two things. The question of the districts methodology which is up to the district. And then there is the question as to whether or not the federal dollars are being used in a way that is supplemental. Marketo mr. Rokita it seems like you are using some comparative attempts. Comparability is focusing on services. Rokita the crs document explains how your supplement nonsupplant proposal is a backdoor to amend the proposal. They said e ssa did not alter the language that prohibits the use when determining expenditures. The proposed regulations appear s tofectively require lea use teachers salaries despite the fact that essa did not address it in this matter. Sec. King mr. Wahlberg. Discussions the going on is important for us to do. Are importantions for us to do. Schools and the means of education shall for ever more being purged. That is not in our u. S. Constitution, that is in the michigan constitution. Taking high priority for the necessity of having schools and education encouraged so that people will be happy. And productive. So, our discussion today, as we intentssed essa, was an to roll back the power, andrity, direction control of the federal government and to really give, as we have talked about in a quotientn way, the fun back, the exciting quotient back to educators in the classroom. School Board Members on the board, parents with dreams and aspirations for their kids to neat,hat education is a beautiful, fun, and productive priority in civilization. And that the greatest control would come from, with the creativity, from the local schools, teachers in the classroom, school boards, parents who love their kids. State boards of education. And so, today as we are is becomingit evident to me that this is a creative tension that we have when we have a powerful entity in the u. S. Department of education arguably who wants to do right by kids in schools but has the philosophical position and a pattern that has been developed over the years of, whether you believe it or thatwe want to make sure what we want to happen in our schools happens. That is human. , the reason for our discussion today is to say that the priority goes back to the states. That is what our law did. Along with that, there will be a creative tension that we will continue to have and hopefully make it productive. To continue on some of the to develop itnd further, mr. Secretary, the statute requires states to assess 95 of students while protecting the right of parents to opt out and granting states the soul discretion sole discretion in determining how the tests should be factored into the accountability system. The statute explicitly prohibits you from prescribing how those factors fit into the system. Tor proposal requires states take at least one of four prescribed actions against schools that missed the requirement. Your proposal also requires schools that mrs. Requirement to develop a plan to address the failure and requires a districts with large numbers of such a schools to also develop an improvement plan. This may be a laudable goal but the law is the law. Let me ask you this question. Can you provide the committee the specific statutory language gives you the that gives you this authority . Socialng as a former studies high school teacher, i appreciate the quoting of the northwest ordinance. Mr. Walter i am a neanderthal. [laughter] sec. King i want to say that i strongly agree with your point and the flexibility of the law regarding the design of the accountability system and and the interventions. On the question of her dissipation mr. Wahlberg what is your Statutory Authority . I have 23 seconds. Sec. King i will be quick. In the four options described in the regulations, one of them is for the state to determine how it will approach the enforcement. The other three are offered as a means by which the state could accountability requirement which is in the statue. States could choose the fourth option which is state determined and that would go through peer review. We were careful as i have to ensure that our regulations are consistent with the letter of the law. History wahlberg i still did not hear your stack statutory thank you. You have made some comments with regard to those students today. Elo on curb the proposed regulation and the second question on the guidance issued this morning. The statute clearly lays out a process first gold districts and Child Welfare agencies to develop an agreement for paying transportation costs for students in foster care who remain in their schools of origin. Language, theat proposed regulations require School Districts to pay for transportation costs with no mention of the process established in the statue. Please explain why the statutory ignored the text and is proposing to require School Districts to cover the transportation costs. If you do not think the department ignore the statutory language, let us know how this provision complies with the clear language in the statue. Where the issue legislation, the intent, is for states to have the flexibility their ownis out with agencies, School District, and Child Welfare agencies. The foster youth a provision of the law is important and it is clear that fostered youth are at risk. It is the reason for that is that they are also moving between schools. The evidence is clear that students are better served when they can have educational debility or where there has to be transitions, that the turgid that the transitions are smooth. We described in the guidance today, our interpretation of the law but we also offer examples of best practice from around the country including places where states have set up very clear guidance. Guidance point is towards collaboration. To ensure that they are either how you waiting the best interests of the students and creating a reasonable plan for smooth transitions and transportation were necessary. In the proposed rule, we are looking for feedback and comments and we expect to get it. The guidance what we try to do is point to what you are describing the needs for l eas and Child Welfare agencies to collaborate. We are looking for feedback. O you leave states will have the flexibility where the Child Welfare agencies and the School Districts can collaborate and figure it out amongst them selves how the transportation costs will be addressed. Sec. King the hardest question is that when if there is a dispute, how will we ensure this student has educational stability. Thery to offer a path in regulation in which we are looking for feedback. Tothe guidance, we tried underscore the importance of the collaborative relationship and also describe examples of effective dispute resolution processes that are in place around the country. i strongly encourage you to Pay Attention to the feedback. I think it is clear that all over this legislation, we have been focusing on state flexibility, trusting states and local communities to make the these kids. Ns for i think, especially when it comes to kids in foster care, which we all want to make sure that they have access to a wantty education, that we to give the states the opportunity to figure out the solutions that work best for the kids in those states and in those communities. Thank you again for your presence and your time. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Chairman kline mr. Allen. Mr. Secretary, essa requires schools with one or more sub groups performing below levels, to be identified for targeted support. Statute requires these schools to be further identified for comprehensive support if they fail to adequately improve within an undetermined number of years. Alsos been mentioned, essa prohibits you from prescribing the methodology used by states to identify schools and yet your schools bequires the identified for comprehensive support within three years if they are not improved. How is this proposal consistent with the plane language of the statute. That it should be state determined. The question is what happens if a school has been identified for targeted support and the south are not making and the subgroups are not making progress. States will need to develop a process for how they will respond when schools are not making progress with those subgroups. The intention is that states their statefy selected interventions based on evidence to ensure that those subgroups improve their performance. Mr. Allen it looks like we have two methodologies. The law versus your rule. Exactly nderstand the states are responsible for dealing with this particular issue. Your rule applies that the federal government is responsible for dealing with this issue. I dont think there is a conflict. The statute requires the state increase the intensity of the intervention if the intervention is not successful in improving the subgroups performance. These regulations are out for Public Comment. Are is the place where we interested in feedback from states, districts, and civil Rights Groups. Mr. Allen Congress Writes the loss. What has amazed me in my short time here is that when we have intent of the law that somehow it gets misinterpreted by the time it gets to one of the departments. I think it is great to have you here this morning and it is great to have this discussion but i also think that we definitely need to follow up on se conflicts which your with your staff and hours to make sure that we implement the law in the way that it was intended. And i yield back. Courtney. Line mr. Courtney i applaud the chairman holding this hearing. Looking back at the 114th doneess, getting the essa and signed into law will probably be viewed as one of the unexpected and pleasant surprises in a good way in terms of the accomplishment here. Migrated toow has the state level. In connecticut, there are working groups under the commission are hard at work trying to a line state education flexibility,he with some guidance from the federal government. I want to report to you that that is full speed ahead in terms of what is going on. One issue which i think is very important in the state of connecticut is that as a result of desegregation lawsuits, connecticut was very aggressive in terms of moving towards Magnet Schools as a solution to racial isolation particularly in the city of hartford. I live 17 minutes away from there on the highway. As the New York Times reported, there has actually been encouraging progress made in modelof the Magnet School in terms of integrating. My daughter went to one of those that was found and it was a lifechanging experience. It was not something her parents pushed her into. She found it on her own. I personally would have liked to see us be more aggressive in promoting Magnet Schools particularly because the city of new london is now going all magnet. There was a provision that allowed transportation costs and some other expenses that make this still a bit of a challenge for local communities. I never talked to you about your perspective on that. I want to ask you how you see signalsroach and the that the legislation sent out to be supportive. Sec. King i am very pleased with some of the adjustments that were made in the Magnet School program in essa. I think it will make it easier for communities to take a Magnet Schools approach. I would love to see us go further and that is why the president proposed the open stronger together efforts. Hartfords Magnet School program is a Great National model that folks should take a close look at. The optionslity of being offered to families that are diverse and the twoway feature of the hartford approach that students are able to go from suburban communities into urban schools and from urban schools into suburban communities. I think that is a very promising approach. We are also looking at how we to use other programs encourage voluntary, locally led efforts. I hope that some states will use the School Improvement flexibility under essa to pursue diversity. Mr. Courtney the batting average for these new models has not been just about racial composition of the student body. It is also about academic achievement. Schools of the magnet score higher than many private and public high schools and k through eight schools in connecticut. I want to tell you that a lot of us are rooting for the department to continue that work in terms of promoting a real solution to the problem to the future success of this country using the Magnet School model. And with that, i yield back. Grorman kline mr. Thman. in the Student Success act, we believe that we prohibited you from any involvement in teacher evaluation systems. I asked you can we be confident that those days are gone . And you said yes, we are clear with the law. Nevertheless, you have now come back with a regulation that that your Department Requires states to develop a definition to define the teachers. The proposal also requires states to identify the percentage of teachers that are in this that are ineffective to this definition. This is contrary to what you told us in february and in contrary to the statue. If there is no statutory proposal, please explain how you expect states to meet this requirement without establishing a teacher evaluation system. Statute requires states to provide information on equitable access to quality teachers. Require and the regulation in the regulation for states to define those terms as they comply with the statutory requirement to report on disproportionate access to those quality teachers. They could not report if they did not defined those categories. Grothman so you dont have any concern in how quality teachers are defined . Question ther metric . Sec. King the proposal goes to peerreviewed. It is not the department but other states and experts who will engage in peerreviewed of the state plan. does wisconsin have to worry that you will ever question that . Sec. King if they were not ensuring that students have equitable access to quality teaching, yes, i would hope that a future department would ensure that the law was in force. Saysrothman wisconsin such and such is a quality teacher. The question is, argue going to question the definition of a quality teacher as defined at the state of wisconsin . If they have teachers that are teaching outside of their license area. Is it possible that in the future the Department Might have find that a state is even eating its responsibility under the law to ensure equitable access to polity teaching . Yes, it is possible. when i look at a lot of the problems in society including poor educational performance, i blame a lot of it on the breakdown of the family. Collect datan you on the students. Do you collect data on family background of the kids . Sec. King there may be an ies study in which those issues are looked at but i do not believe that essa has requirements around that. in your tenure as secretary has there ever been a question that we should do a limited study on the family background of students to see if some family backgrounds are more conducive to Educational Achievement than others. Ims king there may be studies that address that. you have dreams of reams of studies here. I will look to see if there was a study done on that subject and we will be sure to get that to you. i yield the remainder of my time. Chairman kline the gentleman yields back. Elds back. Mr. Carter. Mr. Carter background checks. For accountability systems. The statue past requires the state establish the criteria tot the school must meet exit educational categories. Like they go well beyond the scope of the statute by requiring those criteria to include improvements on the states academic indicators. That appears to contradict what wasstatutes prohibition against the secretary prescribing exit criteria. Youd you explain how envision states and School Districts implementing this portion of the proposal . Sec. King we do not prescribe the percentages for the indicators. The function of the backend checks is to ensure implementation of the statute which requires that the academic indicators have substantial weight and further requires that the academic indicators must have much greater weight than the other indicators. Background checks are a way to do that. They are out for Public Comment and we look forward to reviewing the comment on those. Fromure we will get them states, districts, civil rights organizations, parents, and others. Carter i want to make sure that the department is not overstepping its bounds. Me that there department is not going to run contrary to the statue . Sec. King yes, we have been careful throughout this process to ensure the the regulations comply with the law. We have also been careful to listen carefully to the feedback that we have received from stakeholders and we will continue to do so. Mr. Carter are you continuing to receive feedback . Chose the areas of guidance based on the feedback we have received. We have received comments from over 700 individuals and organizations. Public helped two hearings. The accountability provisions are out now. Data report regulations are out for Public Comment. That timeframe will close in august. Esther carter have you reviewed mr. Carter have you reviewed any of it . Had strongwe have concerns from the civil rights communities and organizations that are focused on kids that are at risk. That the enforcing of the requirement in the law for civil is criticallyils important including the language that says that the academic indicators must have much greater weight and substantial weight. Mr. Carter i am just concerned. I want to make sure that you are not overstepping your bound by what we intended this legislation to be. I want you to to usher me, the committee, that the departments proposals are in line with the statue. And that we will not have you back here try to ask you more questions about what is going on. I dont want another example of the department of education overstepping its bounds. Being verywe are careful to ensure that the regulations we proposed comply with the law. Mr. Carter fair enough. Full disclosure. I want to make sure we are on the same page of what the intent was and what it is you are doing. We have been very careful that the regulations comply with the law. Also are being very careful to gather feedback. Clear that these proposed accountability regulations are in draft that is out for feedback. Mr. Carter thank you. Chairman kline mr. Bishop. Mr. Bishop thank you secretary for your time and testimony. Building on my colleagues questioning, in particular the questioning by mr. Allen and mr. Whatr i would reiterate those others have said. I talked to educators and parents all of the time. They are very concerned about their Students Learning environment and they are very attentive to this new law that we have passed, the essa. They are skeptical because they believe that the law was written with plain language, that we will be able to implement it in the way that it was intended. That Government Agencies tend to take liberties with whatever law is passed by congress. We have seen that up and down the chain. Of just in the Department Education but other departments and agencies as well. There is a bit of skepticism. I am wondering you have indicated you have the regulations out right now for comment. When you have completed those, are you prepared to come back here with the final draft of the regulations to review those with us . Sec. King i certainly will make myself available for many meetings like this one. I think of this as a collaborative effort. I believe the law was passed through a collaborative effort between bipartisan leadership in congress and the president and the department and we want to continue that collaboration. I think that is a wise position to take. That you areence here today in good faith and i look forward to further dialogue. Mr. Bishop i have one other question. It requires states to include a fouryear adjusted Graduation Rate as an indicator in their accountability system. The statute also requires the. Tate to report annual data the statute does not require states to use the Graduation Rate when calculating which high schools are identified for comprehensive support based on low Graduation Rates. The statute leaves the calculation for identification purposes as mr. Carter indicated earlier, to the states. In addition, as you know the statute prohibits you in theicular from prescribing specific methodology for identifying schools. How is your proposal that we have discussed today consistent with the unambiguous language of the statue and the prohibition against prescribing methodologies . Sec. King the key with Graduation Rates is to have a indicator that is present in all schools. The only indicator present in all schools as required by essa is the fouryear Graduation Rate. The regulation provides for states of abilities to create exceptions for schools that englishrve new arrival learners, schools that might serve students with significant disabilities, schools that might serve students that have dropped out and are returning to school. Rate isyear graduation the rate that is required for all schools to reports. Under essa. The exception you are speaking of gives you, despite the prohibition against prescribing methodologies, that it fits within the exception you are speaking of. Sec. King we are using a data point that is available for all schools the starting place for the state plan. Mr. Bishop thank you, mr. Secretary. Chairman kline mr. Thompson. Thompson mr. Secretary, when you testified before the committee in february you said the law that shifts strategies to support the highest needs students in school away from the one size fits all mandate of the one child no children left behind. I appreciated hearing that perspective. Proposal would require state accountability systems to provide a single, summative rating for each school. A one this proposal not size fits all mandate that will stifle state efforts to reclaim the goal of rigorous, wellrounded education . Can you commit to upholding your original commitment to this committee when you published when you publish the final rule . Sec. King we believe that the draft rule reflects that commitment. We are going to take comment and respond to the comments we receive. On the single summative rating, states have flexibility in how they would approach it that. Indexould use a numerical as some do today or they could use categorical approach as many states do today. They will need such an approach in order to identify the bottom 5 of schools. We also require that states provide information to parents and teachers about all of the accountability indicators. There will be robust information about all of the accountability indicators. Again where we will take Public Comment and try to be responsive to the comment we received. It is clear that in order for the law to work, he rides, educators, and the communicators and the Community Need to understand which schools are struggling and needs support. Mr. Nsend in the end at all costs, we want to avoid a one size fits all program. We really need to make sure that we are providing that type of flexibility. I think it comes down to a question of trust. The end, members of congress demonstrated in a bipartisan way, a bicameral way which is really unusual these days, a trust of the states and local governing boards. We expect that you will do the same thing. That your department will do the same thing. To have that trust. Came to mysue attention. Last week, your accreditation staff announced it was recommending the in the National Advisory committee on integrity. It is meeting right now to decide the independent recommendations. Outside of thee ballpark. I want to take the opportunity to ask you about this. These actions are only recommendations. But since you have the ultimate authority to decide the fate of ics. It accredits 250 schools serving 320,000 students. I am concerned that the department is ill prepared to respond to the potential impact. Is the department prepared with a plan to assist schools if they lose their accreditation . Sec. King as you indicated, there is the potential that i will hear an appeal on the case. I cannot comment on the specifics. The time that the recommendation was made by department staff, we posted information for the institutions and for students about potential consequences. Over the nextcess several months for deliberation for an appeals process. Once there is a final Agency Determination on and a creditor, there is a 18 month timeframe in which schools can seek an alternative a creditor. Mr. Thompson you would allow the schools given sufficient time to find a new a creditor. Sec. King we believe schools that are doing a good job by their students will be able to to anothersitioning a creditor in that 18 month timeframe. We can certainly have staff followup with you. Mr. Thompson i would like to talk offline with you about schools doing great by their students but may have trouble with their creditor. All members have had an opportunity to engage in the discussion. Again mr. Thank you secretary and your engagement. I would underscore the scene. I am sure it was not lost. And that is that we have put a lot of bipartisan effort, a lot mentioned its you included the administration in getting the language of the statute very clear. Be watching. Nue to we want to stay in gauged to do everything we can to make sure that the regulations that the department has required to be published are not just sort of like, or semiconsistent with, what exactly consistent with the letter of the intent of the law. We will let you go back to work and start taking a look at the feedback on those regulations. We thank you so much for being here today. Sec. King thank you. We will beine ceding the second panel here momentarily. Seating the second panel here momentarily. A letter regarding accountability to the secretary . Chairman kline without objection. On cspan, washington journal is next followed by newsmakers jeb republican congressman hensarling from texas. Later, a Senate Hearing on how isis ideology is motivating some to carry out socalled lone wolf attacks in the u. S. And abroad. Coming up on todays washington talley with the wall street journal is talking about the impact of brexit on financial markets. A look at gop efforts to allow Convention Delegates to vote for whomever they want as the president ial nominee. Regina thompson joins us. She is cofounder of the free the delegates. And later, author stephen hill talks about his book which is critical of how Companies Like uber and the gig economy are affecting american workers. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2016]] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] host good morning. While in scotland, donald trump expects a post ban on muslim saying the policy would only apply to those from countries that have a heavy amount of terrorism. Hillary clinton addresses the National Conference of mayors meeting in indianapolis. Go to cspan. Org for more information. And democrats now have a draft of the policy platform. Theyll debate at the convention in philadelphia. Its a draft thats been influenced by president ial candidate bernie sanders. It was on cspan that senator sanders admitted he would not become the nominee but he still wants to influence the democratic party. We want to get a sense from you what role senator Texans Sanders to play on 2016. For senator supporters, 2027488000. And for all others, 027488001. The washington journal Washington Post talks about the policy platform. According to anne guerin, heavily influenced by senator sanders. This is a post story saying the draft policy is evidence of the sway sanders holds after a season that has not ended the season. Host it goes on record opposing the Death Penalty which candidate clinton has said she supports in some instances. Thats in the Washington Post this morning. A recent piece taking a look at the hill talks about and this is the headline. Bernie fights for relevance. It was on friday that the pollster and clinton loyalist tweeted