I dont think so, except to show that he supports her. His popularity is going up, as you know. In North Carolina i think it is 50 or higher now. So i think it helps her to be safe with him and it certainly he continues to have a lot of supporters here, particularly minorities and democrats and if he can excite them for her, that will help her get them to turn out in six months. As far as legislators, do we know of anybody here as far as the delegation thats going to be part of this event or attending or local legislators there . Yeah, im sure a lot of some of the delegation will be here. But more importantly for North Carolina politics, the democratic gubernatorial candidate, roy cooper, will be there, as well as the democratic u. S. Senate candidate deborah ross. I dont think either one of them was with secretary clinton when she was in raleigh a couple weeks ago. Literally a couple weeks ago. You know, incidentally, donald trump is in raleigh, North Carolina tonight. So its sort of a trifecta, a president ial trifecta here. As you say, as far as the trump infrastructure there in the state, how would you describe it . Pretty noniexistent thus far. To say theyre building it is i guess the right way to say it but all they have is a state director that we know so far. Theyve been pretty tightlipped as the Trump Campaign has been in a lot of places. But the joint Campaign Committee for the republicans are said to have a lot of people on the ground. Thats people from the party who are here working for all the candidates here, including senator burr and governor pat mccrory. The trump people alone, not so much. Jim morrill of the charlotte observer. Talking about the event today in charlotte, his piece on the website, some things to know about tuesdays Clinton Obama rally in charlotte. Jim morrill, thank you so much. Again, live coverage begins at 3 00 p. M. Mitt romney won the state four years ago and real clear politics polls show a virtual tie. Donald trump and senator bob corker of tennessee will Campaign Together today in raleigh, North Carolina. Theyll be at the Duke Energy Center for the performing arts. Senator corker met with donald trump in may and has been mentioned as a possible Vice President ial pick. Real clear politics polls show North Carolina as a tossup state. See the rally live at 7 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan3. The House Rules Committee meets later today to consider a counterterrorism bill with a gun control provision. That measure would allow the attorney general to delay gun sales to people who are on a terror watch list. The bill is expected to be brought up on the house floor tomorrow. Live coverage on cspan2 starts at 5 00 p. M. Eastern. The group right on crime is hosting a briefing today called the success of conservative criminal Justice Reform. Well hear from grove norquist with americans for tax reform, pat nolan with the american conservative union, and other members from right on crime. Live coverage starts at 1 30 p. M. Eastern here on cspan3. Education secretary john king testifies on proposed regulations in the Early Childhood education act whether the department had legal justification to impose them on schools. Secretary king told the Senate Education committee that the proposed regulations ensure a focus on all students and that family members, educators and sta stakeholders play an Important Role in the process. Over the past seven and half years thanks to hard working educators supported by families, High School Graduation rate is at a record high and schools in 49 states are helping students meet college and career ready standards and assessing their progress. More states are also investing more money in helping to ensure children are ready to succeed when they enter kindergarten. Increasing their spending on Early Learning by 1. 5 billion over the past three years. And yet so much work remains. Far too many students from every background still arrive at college needing remedial classes and black and hispanic students continue to lag behind their white peers in achievement and Graduation Rates. Latest figures from our Civil Rights Data collection illustrate in powerful and troubling ways the disparities in opportunity and experience for different groups of students in our schools. Just a few statistics. Students with disabilities are more than twice as likely as students without disabilities to be suspended. Schools with high concentrations of black and latino students are less likely to offer advanced courses such as calculus and physics which also are critical for success in college. 1 out of every 5 High School Students or English Learners is chronically absent. These are the very children the act was designed to protect and serve. It provides communities and states with a pathway to excellence for all students as well as tools to help them get there. Using the greater flexibility, states can go beyond test scores in math and english by adding their own indicators of School Quality and progress to ensure a rigorous well rounded education for every student. We know that strong literacy and math skills are necessary for success in College Careers and life but they are not sufficient. Importantly, a rich rigorous well rounded education helps our children make critical connections among what they are learning in school, cure yos ii and skills they need to become sophisticated thinkers and leaders who will solve the most pressing challenges facing our communities, our country and our world. Understanding that this work requires all of us working together, states are expected to involve local educators, parents, civil rights groups, business leaders, tribal officials, and other stakeholders in choosing other indicators of quality such as decreases in chronic absenteeism or increases in the number of students taking and passing advanced classes. The legislation also includes critical protections and provides Additional Resources for our traditionally underserved students such as students of color, students from low income families, students with disabilities, Students Learning english, native american students, foster and Homeless Youth and migrant and seasonal farm worker children. States must take meaningful action to improve schools where students or groups of students are struggling and in high schools that have low Graduation Rates year after year. But the flexibility of the law also allows them to tailor these interventions to schoolspecific needs. As with all legislation and policy, the quality and fidelity of their implementation are critical to success. Please allow me to update you quickly on our progress toward helping states implement this lawfully and faithfully. The first thing we did was listen. To date weve convened over 200 meetings with stakeholders across the country with educators, School Leaders in rural and suburban communities. We posted a notice seeking Public Comment on areas in need of regulation and requested feedback on areas in need of guidance. We received hundreds of comments. In response we prioritized accountability, including data reporting and state plans, assessments under title 1, parts a and b, and title 1s requirement that federal dollars supplement not supplant state and local funds for education. As you know, this past spring we engaged in negotiated rule making. Negotiators reached consensus on assessment and we will move forward with publishing those regulations for comment. The negotiators were not able to reach consensus on supplement not supplement but weve continued to get feedback. This month we issued our proposed rule making on accountability, state plans and data reporting. It was published in the federal register on may 31st and well continue to receive comment through august 1st. We encourage comment on these proposes regulations and look forward to responding to that comment. Consistent with the strong civil rights legacy of the law it ensures a focus on owl restaurants including historically underserved subgroups of students in accountable decisions. They ensure meaningful action is taken to improve the lowest performing schools with families, educators and stakeholders playing an Important Role in the process. They also ensure educators, students and families have an accurate picture of students academic performance. Weve also committed to issue guidance in selfkey areas based on the feedback weve received. We already recently issued guidance around foster youth. We will soon issue guidance related to homeless utyouth as well as English Learners. And title 2, title 4 and Early Learning. As we issue that guidance we are guided by the many comments weve received 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, this is a bipartisan achievement that provides the Statutory Foundation to close our remaining gaps and address our persistent inequities. I have 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. I look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure highquality implementation of this law supporting by the department that guarantees a world class education for every child. Thank you. Happy to take any questions you may have. Thank you, mr. Secretary. Well 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 the end of last year. 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 policy. I am hopeful that after the regulations are finally done that well still feel the same way. In that spirit, let me continue a 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 the states would have time to plan for the transition to the law. Youve heard and weve heard some states say that your proposed regulation account doesnt permit a state to do this. Let me ask you if what im 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 this begins 20172018. Thats next year. That means theyd be collecting data in that year. Then in 201819 theyd identify new schools in need of improvement. That would leave the year coming up, 201617 as a transition year during which i would assume that states would continue to work with their alreadyidentified schools, although some states might want to move more rapidly. Does that schedule would your proposed regulation allow that sort of schedule . I appreciate the question. Our goal is to make sure that, as the committee has developed this law, that we focus on trying to expand the definition of Educational Excellence giving states the opportunity to add indicators alongside english and math, forms and Graduation Rates. We want states to move as quickly as they can on that. The timeline assumes that, yeah, 1617 would be a transition year and states would continue intervention in their previously identified schools. The timeline in the current draft regulations on which we are seeking comment anticipates that states would implement their new accountability system in 1718 and address the needs of schools identified in that accountability system in 1718. That said, weve heard feedback from states that some states would like the ability to carry over the schools in which theyre intervening from 1617 into 1718. Were open to continuing to listen closely to comment. To understand, what i said was that a state would collect the data and develop its new accountability system in 201718, then begin to identify the schools in 201819. Understood. Under the current regulations, that would not be. The interventions would begin in 1718. But as i said, and will emphasize again, we are 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 1718 . Would that be the same schools as in 1617 . Let me just i only 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 systems in 201718, then they could identify new schools under that system in the fooling year, 201819, if they choose to do that. May i move on to one other question here . Your proposed regulation requires that all schools receive a single summative rating based on a states accountability system. An a to f Rating System might be a good Rating System in some states, but in other states its been criticized. New york is moving away from an a to f system and furthermore the law prohibits the secretary from prescribing the specific methodology used by states to meaningfully differentiate or identify schools. I dont see anywhere within the law the word kwl single summative rating, and how do you justify a proposed regulation 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 regulati regulations of use of an a through f rating. States can take a variety of approaches to a single summative rating. They could use a through f if they so chose. They could use a numerical index if they so chose or 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, is a categorical rating. Then schools would get neither comprehensive or targeted support and that, too, is a categorical rating. So all we require is that they have either that they have some methodology by which they can identify those schools and clearly communicate about the performance of their schools with the public. My time is up. But id like for you to think about where in the law you get the authority to provide for a single summative Rating System. May i not taking time off your i think i will go vote, if i may, and leave you in charge of the committee and ill come right back. 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, i have heard from stakeholders that states may not have their new accountability systems in place by beginning of 201718 school year. As a result states would have to identify schools based on old data from systems designed before essa was signed in to law and thats deeply concerning to teachers and parents around my state and the country. I hope as your Department Works on the final regulation youll address that very real issue for our states and our schools. On the questions, i really worked hard to make sure that essa requires schools to receive supports and interventions where any group of students is consistently underperforming. However, im very concerned that the draft rule weakens that requirement 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 their state set goals for many years and not receiving the support which is so important that they need to improve as required by essa. How do you square that . We think it is very important states and districts focus on their subgroups where theyre underperforming. The parameters for states to identify their systems for identifying those schools who 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 thats consistent with the bottom 5 of schools, as well. But this is a place again where were open to feedback and certainly there are contrasting views on what the parameters for state subgroup targeted subgroup identification should be and were open to feedback on that. I want to make sure they get the resources they need and if were not identifying them, they wont. Another issue. Im 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 1,000. Were struggling to meet the needs of Homeless Children and families. Thats been a goal of mine to make sure we meet their needs. Essa makes a number of changes to identify and support Homeless Children with liaisons. How is your Department Planning to make sure these changes are implemented effectively . I share your commitment to addressing the needs of homeless students. Weve 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. We expect to issue that guidance shortly this summer. Ill be looking for that. I want to ask you about the preschool which is a priority of mine. Essa includes new policies to ensure our states and districts and schools to use money for preschool programs. Im very proud that my home state of washington is leading the way when it comes to using this funding for preschool. One district uses the title 1 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 their essa funding to improve access to highquality Early Learning . We think the commitment to preschool is one of the signature achievements of essa. We are working with health and Human Services on an mou around plemtati implementation of the program around essa and working on guidance around Early Learning that will focus on best practices and examples of approaches just like what you are describing where states may use their title 1 dollars or School Improvement dollars to focus on o expanding access to preschool for students most in need. Finally, im hearing a lot about teacher short animal in my state. Particularly special education, teachers of English Learners, s. T. E. M. Teachers. In essa we rewrote title 2. How is the Department Planning to make sure states and districts know about the new tools in essa because we are facing this crisis . 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 es essa. We are also developing guidance on title 2 that we expect to issue later this year that will help point states towards their available resources and to some examples of best practice. 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 highneed schools. Okay. Very much appreciate that. 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 didnt intend to follow every Student Succeeds act as its written. So that led me to vote against your confirmation. An example, 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 of 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 fulltime equivalent employees the department identified. When i asked you if you were on track to reduce the number of positions that it the department of education in one year, you stated to me you were going to move those positions to other areas within the department. So 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 dont have to have a hearing any time we want to get a late response from you. Id like to know if youre on track to reduce the number of positions within the department of education per the statutory requirements that none of us voted against and it was signed in to law by president obama. We all agreed to reduce the size of the department of education. Its the law. Will you do so . To be clear, we will certainly follow the statute. The programs that we 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, incumbents in those positions. 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 programs that are eliminated, then those staff positions will not be needed. But virtually every program that existed in 2015 was funded through the appropriations process for 2016. You know, in the senate, there are distinctly different jobs. Appropriators go et 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 its written, and weve worked on this reauthorization for many years. I think we finally got it to where it needs to be. Were not rewriting it. And i expect that you wont do it as well. Id encourage you to answer all congressional inquiries within a timely manner and actually have the inquiry come from you. I havent gotten anything from you yet. Ive gotten it from some assistants. 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 were doing a vote, i wont take a lot of time. Ive 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. Thank you very much. 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 end size, which is the size of the subgroups that are counted for accountability purposes. Then i want 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, essa is fundamentally a civil rights well, 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. We made very clear in the law that we wanted schools to have specific targeted inventions 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 wasnt going to dick taut, 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 100 students large, and anything under 100 students didnt count as a subgroup, then you wouldnt 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, youve at least got to explain why. And the reason for that is that if every state pegs their number at 30 or higher, then 1 out of every 5 disabled students, for instance, in this country wont 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 number is too high. That in fact there are 29 states today that have end sizes 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 new england minority student or poor student whos in a school and theres less than 30 of them, that they wont be counted, that leaves a lot of kids outside of the accountability systems. Just talk to me about that. Yeah. So as you indicated, the law preserves the ability for states to set the end size. But we wanted to make sure that there were thoughtful parameters as states think about what end size to use. We require them, as you said, to provide a justification if they are going over 30. We did that based on research evidence. There was an ie. Is study 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. So thats how we came up with 30. But the idea is that states would give their explanation in their state plan, and that would be subject to peer review. And then how about the second question about the accountability regimes . Youve allowed for a multitude of factors to be built in to accountability standards. But im concerned that there could be states that use standards that dont necessarily tell the true story of how students are performing. So for instance, in my state, weve got pretty high Graduation Rates but we have pretty low proficiency rates in math and reading. So for instance, 58 of africanamerican High School Students are proficient in reading, yet they have a dpr Graduation Rate of 80 . If you use Graduation Rates, then you arent seeing the underlying story because you have things like social promotion that pushes kids out the door. What are the tools at the departments disposal to make sure these accountability systems are actually capturing the true performance of students . 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 weve tried to structure the state plan process so that the peers will evaluate whether or not states have indeed complied with that substantial weight requirement and greater weight rirms requirement by ensuring schools where students arent making academic progress continue to get the support they need. That schools that are getting targeted support because of subgroup underperformance actually see meaningful improvement in the academic performance of those subgroups. So again weve tried to balance both state flexibility with civil rights guard rails to make sure that states really are paying attention to the kids who are most at risk. I just ask these questions to make the committee aware, there were a lot of us very involved in these accountability regulations who, frankly, dont think they go far enough. To the extent in this city you know youve done something right when both sides arent happy, i know there are many that think some aspects of the regulations go too far, there are many of us who think that they could have gone much farther. And i appreciate you taking concerns from both sides. Just lastly, mr. Chairman, some of the data i was referring to is in a study called ensuring equity in essa, the role of end size and subgroup accountability from the alliance for excellence in education. I just ask this be added to the record. It will be. Mr. Secretary, ill 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 in districts that reinforce their local flexibility, you dont buy that . We think that local flexibility is important but we also think the law importantly protects civil rights guard rails 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 have not been to a school in North Carolina since i have been secretary, no. You cite in this rule within the proposed regulation that youre forcing this new accountability regime of 9,000 schools. You point to Research Done in 2014 by the National Bureau of Economic Research on how nclb accountability systems insentfied schools labeled for sanctions improved in areas that led to their identification in the states accountability system. That Research Focused on North Carolina. And i took interest in this citation because of North Carolina. What your rule doesnt 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 sanctions regeeime is an effective way to identify schools in need of change. Simple question why would you continue to head down this destructive path. I think our regulations actually preserve state and local flexibility, advance state and local flexibility within in 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 there are students of color or lowincome students or theyre English Learners or students with disabilities are not performing. In your comments back on this rule, if you have people supportive of this pathway that youre had heed do are headed d . The proposed regulations reflect much the comment that we have received. I anticipate that we will continue to get comment, particularly from parents organizations, educator organizations, and civil rights organizations who worry that in the absence of the civil rights guard rails that the law puts in place i ask that you share with the committee that list of groups who have come out and said they are 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 reviewed the data, im very concerned by what i see. Lowincome students and students of color are disproportionately attending schools where they simply dont 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 makes sense because it is a prerequisite for most colleges. But only onethird of mostly black and latino high schools offer calculus, which means that the kids attending twothirds 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 departments implementation of essa and your proposed regulations will help close these critical opportunity gaps for our students . Certainly our hope is that as states develop their accountability systems, that they will include indicators like access to advanced course work. You are exactly right about calculus. We see a similar pattern around chemistry, around physics, around access to advanced placement and International Back laureate courses. States have an option to include that kind of indicator and to act on it, we hope. We also think it is important that states are transparency are equitable access to resources and advanced course work could be a part of that. This goes to the heart of the supplement not supplant question. That schools serving highneed students cant offer these courses is often bound up with a lack of resources and ensuring the federal resources are supplemental is essential to making sure that kids have equitable access to these opportunities. Well, thank you very much. I am glad that your proposed rules give us better data to shine light on these disparities. But were also going to need to use those data to make clear to states that shortchanging students based on where they live or their family incomes is just unacceptable and i hope youll 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 is on the Higher Education side. New data from the departments Student Loan Bank show that despite the availability of many repayment options to help students, were still facing an avalanche of student loan defaults. When a student defaults, the bank hammers hammers them, sei wages, slamming their credit reports. It seems like life isnt so hard for the servicers who get paid to manage those loans. Heres 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 youre doing to make sure that the next round of negotiations creates some accountability for northeast companithese companies so they actually help families who are struggling instead of just fattening their own bottom lines . So we are developing a new servicer contract and a new servicer structure that will involve a common platform with multiple Services 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 weve done in that servicer contract recompete is built in a set of principles that implement the president s students bill of rights, student borrowers bill ever rights. Those were developed with the Treasury Department and represent what good servicing should look like. This contract will proceed on several stages. First the identification of the platform provider and then the identification of the servicers who will work on that platform, but we intend to ensure that servicers do a good job supporting students and better than theyve done. Good. Im very glad to hear this and this commitment on your part, but let me just put a finer points on this. What role should the Companies 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, three 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 or if the company is facing state, ag, and federal lawsuit investigations, then i think thats 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 the students dont, and they need you. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator warren. Senator isakson. Thank you. Thank you for calling me in advance to ask me what i was going to ask you so you had a week to prepare. I havent changed my question. Number one, i have been a big believer im married to a teacher, speech and hearing. Have always had a quarrel with the 1 cap on cognitive disability for assessment purposes because i believe that the iep ought to be required for every student in americas schools to determine the best educational plan given their ability both exceedingly good or exceedingly bad. With that said, what are you doing to help ensure that kids are identified for their education and what are you doing to give us the flexibility to make shush a kid is assessed . This 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. And 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. Well, yielding in favor of the child every time, we need to make sure theyre getting the appropriate assessment and the arbitrary cap by government is not the appropriate way to run that program. What senator warren was asking about, arent all Student Loans now direct loans from the government . There are Student Loans that are taken through private lenders, but within the direct loan program weve tried to put in place repayment optionings 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 at 10 . And the 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 that they should have and we intend to ensure that they do Going Forward. That would be our fault and not the servicers fault, is that not correct . At the end of the day the Services Also have responsibility to not try to read the contract and find loopholes to provide less than adequate service to students, and rather than focus on where weve been, were focused on where were Going Forward and showing that the contracts build in the right protections. The point i want to get to is this. One of the biggest things we need to in education is teach our kids how to be responsible in managing their own money, learning life skills and Students Loans are a good way for us to do that. The more we focus on teaching our students to borrow what they can repay and to understand repayment is an obligation, not just a promise, well do a lot better off. Just wanted to throw that in quickly. On the 95 assessment threshold, youre familiar with what im talking about . Uhhuh. We gave a lot of flexibility to the systems to allow students parents to opt their child out of an assessment. Are you familiar with that provision . I am. Its possible because of opt out and other anomalies that may happen, the system may fall below 95 , is that not correct . Well, both have a requirement that states would assess all stungts and essa has a specific requirement for state action when the participation falls below 95 . Thats my moupoint. The 95 is a goal. In our regulations, we provide a set of options for our states, including a statedetermined option for how they would address being under the 95 participation and ultimately getting to the allstudent participation thats required by the statute. Are you sure there are options or are they mandates . Theyre a set of options including a statedetermined option. Because i think our intention with secretary alexander, now chairman alexander, pastsecretary alexander, tried to get us to do, and we did a very good job of it is setting goals but leaving the administration, the punishment, the calculation, and the goals or the mechanisms to achoo he have those goals to the states, not the federal government. There is a place where there would be state options and the state will describe what option they have chosen in their state plan subject to peer review. Its important that 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 to the local board of education or the state wherever possible to achieve and meet those goals. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, i dont usually do this on the way to senator frank, but you have no authority in the law to prescribe specific options. Thats the job of the congress and thats something we need to talk about. None whatsoever. None whatsoever. We describe options and then states choose well, 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. Thats what the no child left behind kept doing and thats what the problem with this rule is. 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, the state is determining their approach entirely. Well, thats helpful. Thank you. Thank you for allowing me to clear that up. Senator franken. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to talk about something that is a particular interest to me and that i was very glad that we were able to get in essa, which is making sure that foster kids can stay in their school when they change foster parents. We had testimony i think it was back in 2010 of a young lady named kayla from minnesota who ended up going to hamlin and did has 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, you know, foster parents routinely, and very often the only constant in their life is their school, and so what has been going on is thap kids who have a favorite subject, a teacher, an activity in their school that is the biggest constant in their life, friends, for goodness sake, in a school suddenly change foster parents and theyre forced to go to a different school, and this everyone sort of agreed finally, we got this done, and so basically the way we wrote it in essa 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 Somebody has to get so in your proposed regulation, School Districts are ultimately responsible for providing and funding transportation for foster kids to their school of origin. Since its the Comment Period on that regulation, id like to comment, and id rather you go with your guidance because your guidance does not specify who is ultimately responsible, and id like the school and the Public 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 thats my comment. Appreciate that. We share the commitment around educational stability for foster youth because kids are moving between schools is often the reason that kids miss school, do not make the academic progress they need to, or retain in grade, drop out. We try to say the Child Welfare agencies and the 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 the lea have different perspectives. Its true that in the regulations we try to offer a path for how those disputes would ultimately be resolved around transportation costs, but, yes, we are taking comment and well consider all comment, including yours. Thank you for including my comment. Im a senator. My goodness. I think all of you should be insulted on my behalf. Okay. I want to talk about Something Else that i worked for to get in this bill. Given that 1 in 5 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 countrys most pressing unmet needs. Im proud of the work weve been able to accomplish on Mental Health, but we have a long way to go. In essa we include provisions that i have long champi iaia ii increase Mental Health services in school. Thats why im very disappointed that the spending bill passed out of the Senate Appropriations committee did not provide Adequate Funding for support and academic enrichment grants which includes critical programs that americans really care about. Thats really something that parents care about and the schools care about, and im 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 have seen this work in School Districts that do this. I have had round tables with parents who say it has changed their family. It has changed their kids life. It has changed them. Yes. So we share your disappointment with the proposed funding level for title 4. Certainly the president proposed a significant increase around title 4. 222 million in additional funding for title 4 because wed 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 guide schools and district its to how they could take advantage of the Affordable Care act to support schoolbased Mental Health services. They think their existing dollars under aca and medicaid that could be used to support schoolbased Mental Health services and we offer examples of best practices. We also through our promise Neighborhoods Grant Program are supporting efforts to match schools with communitybased organizations and communitybased Health Providers to try to get those Mental Health services to kids and to families because often Mental Health issues in the family have an impact on children as well. So i share your commitment and would love to see the title 4 funding higher. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and i hope that 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. Well, thank you, mr. Chairman. As the distinguished chairman of the committee has said many times, the bill which we passed last year to reauthorize the essa restores responsibilities to states for their local schools by providing increased flexibility to design and implement their education programs. Key word here is local. Im very proud to be able to include my language to permanently end the federal governments ability to use any incentive or tool or coercion to force states to adopt common core. If they want common core, fine. If they dont, thats the int t intent. In fact, just to be absolutely clear, here is what my language says. No officer or employee of the federal government, including the secretary, shall attempt to influence, condition, incentivize, or coerce state adoption of the common core state standards or any other academic standards common to a significant number of states or assessments tied to such standards. Now, here is the problem. A highranking education leader in kansas recently pointed out to me and the fact that he wants to be anonymous is rather telling, quote, it is not in our opinion that the new essa law based on the current vertsion o the 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 countless prohibitions explicitly stating that the federal government is prohibited from mandating, directing, controlling, coercing, orb exerci or exercising any direction or supervision over academic standards states adopt including common core state standards. The administration is prohibited from influencing or coercing states or School Districts to adopt any specific academic standards. Now, mr. Secretary, i would specifically like to bring your attention to section 1005b of the act which states that, states shall provide an assuran assurance, assurance, assurance, that the state has developed challenging academic content standards. The state shall only provide an assurance that they have adopted academic standards. Turning to regulations that addresses the state plan for challenging academic standards, this would require each state Education Agency to provide evidence, evidence demonstrating that it has adopted changing academic content standards and aligned academic achievement standards. My question, whats 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 wrrd with respect to the intent as well as the explicit prohibitions in the law during your nomination hearing. In my view there is obviously a big difference between providing an assurance and providing evidence. This proposed regulation eviscerated the intent of congress and essa. So, mr. Secretary, would you please explain what i think is a blatant violation of numerous prohibitions and also the essa statute that clearly says a 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 its possible that standards are determined by states. The law is clear on that point. We are clear on that point. I have 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 a process to ensure that the state has gone through a rigorous and reliable process of matching their standards to their assessments, and as part of that process, that peer review process who are these folks again . Were doing a twostep here, not a onestep. This is unrelated to the content check the box and say we are assuring you that were doing that with regards to your standards that are probably in writing so that they can understand what they are, but youre saying that there is a secondary step that theyre going through with a whole bunch of folks that have to then say, okay, we are providing evidence. I dont know what that evidence is. I dont know what it means. Is this a lot of paperwork . Is it a rigorous test . What is it . So this is the longstanding peer review process required under nclb is still in place under essa. Peer review process to assure that the assessment system that a state develops is a valid one. And as part of that process the peer reviewers who are the peer reviewers . Those are other states and would include experts on assessment who would participate in the peer review process. What, the big 12 or what are we doing here . This would be folks who work in other states and 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 said assurance. We said assurance. We didnt say this is two different things, and now you got at peer review folks, perhaps theyre helpful, but, again, they could just check the box with assurance as to opposed to providing evidence to i dont know how many peer review groups youre talking about, but it seems to me were going to have to have some further discussion about this without any question. I appreciate your response. And, look, we are open to feedback on how we can make absolutely clear in the regulations that standards are set by states. That is clearly a shared commitment. I think that theres a peer review from 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 to my colleague. Thank you, senator roberts. Senator bennet. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for holding this hearing. Mr. Secretary, its 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. Theres a lot of excitement about the possibility of now being out from under no child left behind. Were having conversations about how we use that flexibility and at the same time make sure weve got the rigor thats needed, and i know you yourself were a former principal of a school. I wonder whether you could talk be about what the department is doing to ensure 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. Thanks. Thats been a priority for us and also a priority that we have communicated to states around their process. Weve held over 200 meetings around the country with educators, with parents, with Community Leaders as weve 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 Dear Colleague letter last week to states laying out recommendations and best practices around Stakeholder Engagement. I think lots of states are doing a good job on this, but we worry some arent, that some havent worked with their districts to make sure that teachers and principles, for example, can get release time so they can participate in this process. Some states have been slower than others to engage tribal leaders and civil rights organizations. So weve been encouraging folks around the council of chief state School Officers put out a guide to Stakeholder Engagement they developed with a number of orthss including civil rights organizations and we made dlcle Stakeholder Engagement throughout the process is required. One thing thats certainly true with the change in the law is we have devolved the responsibility for implementimp United States a fairly significant way. How do you expect over time we will be able to identify those places where they are setting a rigorous standard for kids and demanding that standard for kids in places where its a less rigorous 125rd and what do you expect the conversation to be like. One is the peer review process at the outset that i was talking with senator roberts about. Theres also the transparency requirements that i think will help us understand where sub groups are not performing and well be a able to see are states making progress there . One of the things the department will need to be vigilant about is the law provides a lot of flexibility for states around how to intervene in schools that are struggling or schools with low Graduation Rates but weve got to make sure those interventions translate into progress and that states respond when that progress isnt made. Could you talk also a little bit its often been said up here that this law is a civil rights law, and i agree request that. I think theres not really any other reason for the federal government to be involved in education other than that k12 level. Could you talk about what youre 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 the one degree or another is also maintained . Yes. We try throughout the accountability regulations to preserve the important civil rights guardrails making clear that states need to provide disaggregated data for all sub groups on not just at the summative level but for each accountability standard they put in place. States need to have a clear process in place for identifying schools that are have consistently underperforming subgroups and have meaningful intervention to improve performance. That theres clear data desegregation around equitable access to resources, so we can ensure schools are providing opportunity on an equitable basis to our students of color, students with disabilities, but this work is going to require continued vigilance on the part of the federal government and states and districts to make sure we dont let kids fall through the cracks. I wanted to get in one last question. There are no for federal models as there were in no child left behind. Thats now left to the states and local districts to figure out, to research and design these, and i just wonder whether you thought that through a little bit, about how people can are going to have the research they need to be able to implement target to School Improvement strategies in this new world. Its very important that folks do that informed by evidence about what works, and certainly efforts like the Education Innovation and research fund, the work of ies will help to provide that Evidence Base. We try in the regulations to talk about how states can as they move progressively forward and more intense interventions, if schools arent making progress, 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 we know that in schools with strug willing english lynners using dual language strategies has a strong Evidence Base. We want to make sure folks are thinking about that as they plan their intervention. Thank you, mr. Secretary. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator bennet. Senator collins. 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 as the collins amendment. I had a longstanding 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. And needless to say i was the leadoff witness. And i started off by pointing out that i was collins, i am collins, im 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 thats 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 essentially, but reporting requirements should not be so onerous that small School Systems in rural states have difficulty in complying unless they are specifically authorized by the every Student Succeeds act. We want to make sure 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 expendit e expenditur expenditures. Can you two questions. Can you point to specific authority in essa that you believe allows the department to propose these additional reporting requirements which appeared 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 feedback on the reporting requirements as we are to the entire regulation. Look forward to feedback from stakeholders. Additional data will be necessary for states, but, again, were open to feedback on the proposed regulations, and if there are places where folks think there is already, for example, an existing data report that addresses something, were open to consolidating those. So this is a place where we look forward to stakeholder feedback. Well, to me its obvious in the law what is required, so i hope youll take a look. I want to second the comments made by the chairman about the summative rating from 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, innovative 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 summative 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 . So just to be clear, the summative rating language in the regulation does not require the use of a letter grade or a numerical index. A state could use those, but a state could also use categorical system consistent with the statute. The statute requires that states idea schools for comprehensive support, that states identify schools for targeted support, and then there will be schools that are neither of those categories. So the statute envisions a categorical system at a minimum. Thats consistent with our summative rating approach. Also to identify the bottom 5 of schools that will get that comprehensive support, states will need to have a methodology to identify those schools that will require relative comparison of school performance. Exactly whats intended by the summative raiding lating langua. We think the summative 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 were making the right investments and making the right decisions with regard to children. I have often said that if kids learn more now, theyll earn more later, and thats not just a rhyme. Its literally the truth. We know that. That starts certainly with Great Teachers at the core of that process of learning more so they can earn more later. I 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, socalled best act was included to make sure that states and districts, School Districts, implement evidencebased 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 improvement academic outcomes and also improving a teachers ability to serve particularly atrisk populations. We plan to issue guidance on title 2 with some examples of best practice around the use of title 2 dollars to support high quality professional development. Web also are supporting states as they implement their equity plans around equitable access. Many of those plans rely heavily on quality professional development. We have a number of professional Development Programs that are part of the education and innovation and research or i3 program. And as those evaluations come back, we will have even a broader Evidence Base around effecti effective professional and Development Strategies states and districts will be able to access. I appreciate that because we cant seek to have Great Teachers in classrooms if you dont have great professional development. I wanted to ask you as well, its an issue that i think senator bennet raised earlier, and i want to expand upon it a little bit. This question of engagement by stakeholders, which is always the intent that we have educators, teachers, and other education professionals, parents and Community Leaders involved, and i know theres been a fairly robust and significant engagement, but i wanted you to give us a sense of how do you measure that, how do you demonstrate that theres been that kind of engagement . Because i know that youve 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 for raising this issue, but i wanted to get your sense of kind of where we are with engaging all of those critically important stakeholders. Yeah. So there are some encouraging signs. Chief state School Officers issued a guide pointing out best practices and they did that in partnership with i think over 30 organizations, civil rights organizations, educator organizations. I think that was an important step, an important resource for states. As i have talked with state chiefs, i have 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 underserved like students with disabilities and English Learners but theres a range. One of the reasons we issued the Dear Colleague letter is in some states they have been slower to do that, and in some states they have had a challenge around teachers and principals in particular getting the release they need to participate in these activities. We want to try to encourage states to be very active in getting their districts to make sure educators can participate fully. We also in the regulations set out a requirement for frequent, consistent engagement of stakeholders. I think the success of the law is partly bound up with how effectively states mobilize a diverse Cross Section of stakeholders in this work. We appreciate that. We just want to hear all those voices, especially the voices of educators. I will submit for the record a question on the oregon suspensions and expulsions, trying to reduce the use of those practices. So well submit that in writing. Thanks very much. Thank you. Thank you, senator casey. Senator murkowski. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And secretary, i wanted to follow up from a conversation that we had last time before you were before the committee, and that relates to the cancellation in the state of alaska of the alaska measures of progress, the amp assessment. As you know, we were compelled to cancel that statewide assessment because we had significant widespread, totally unplained and unfixed technical problems that prevented students from being able to complete the amp. A lot of frustration there as i mentioned to you. You received 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. So state department of education has requested a waiver from the requirement to assess he is during the 1516 school year. The question to you this morning is will you approve the states waiver . As you know, weve been in close communication with leadership in alaska. I think were awaiting 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 youre going to need to make this determination because, i mean, this is obviously very, very important to the state of alaska. In the past in these situations its been a matter of weeks that weve needed to review you can watch this hearing anytime on our website, cspan. Org. We leave it here and take you live to capitol hill as americans for tax reform president Grover Norquist joins leaders from the organization write on crime to discuss new ideas for criminal justice. Our work revolves around three key principles, fighting crime, supporting victims, and protecting taxpayers. We have dozens of conservative leaders, former governors, legislators, members of law enforcement, commentators, and other policymakers who have signed onto our statement of principles. Right on crime is a National Project and has been active in over 40 states and at the federal level helping to inform legislators and governors of the successful reform that puts Public Safety first. Why does a texas krveg think tank involved in conservative Justice Reform. The texas model for criminal Justice Reform is one that continues to be replicated throughout the nation, particularly in conservative states. As marc levin will explain, the texas model is successful because the focus has not been about social engineering nor is it an exercise of government flexing its muscles to prosecute and put away as many people as possible. Instead, its focused on tweaking the system to fight crime, protect Public Safety, and as a result we also wind up saving taxpayer dollars. What i hope you will take away from our presentation today is the knowledge that criminal Justice Reform is a policy matter that is for and by conservatives. Applying our principles to deal with the reality of how crime affects all americans in their communities. Were going to have a slight change to our program today. Marc levin is going to speak first. Marc is our policy director for right on crime and the director for the center for effective justice at tppf. Marc has been with tppf before the reforments to the texas criminal justice began in 2007. Marcs work has been featured by just about anyone who has wanted to change the system around for good reason. His leadership in research in texas has propelled the right on crime efforts into a National Project for successful reform. Marc has testified before dozens of state legislatures. You might recognize him from a few such visits to washington to do the same. Marc is going to share more of the policy details explaining how and why these reforms work. Marc . Thanks so much, joe. We changed it up, as you know most of you are here to see grover so we didnt want everyone to leave after his remarks, but grover was asked by president reagan a number of moons to go to start americans for tax reform, and so i wanted to begin just with a quote from Ronald Reagans state of the state speech back in 1971 in california as governor. He said our rehabilitation policies and improved parole system are attracting new attention. Fewer parolees are being returned to prison than any time in history. So, of course, after that time frame, after the early 70s to the mid2000s, we saw a five to sixfold increase in incarceration in the United States. And so we went to measuring our success in so many of those years by how many people were in prison and how essentially how big the Corrections System was, which certainly isnt something those of us who believe in small go. Should be proud of. And so we have indeed seen we have 5 of the worlds population but 25 of the worlds prison inmates. 1 in 3 adults in the United States have a criminal record. 1 in 34 americans are now under correctional control, and, of course, theres more than 4,500 federal criminal laws. They actually couldnt count all of them. So theres a huge copse to this certainly financial. Corrections costs in this country have tripled since 1983. Newt gingrich said if twothirds of the bridges we built, that would be a national scandal. But that is the recidivism rate. And so we know, of course, sometimes there are people that obviously need in prison who are dangerous to society but others get worse as they become incarcerated. One of the problems we see is more than 1 in 5 inmates across the country are released without supervision. Meaning that theres no accountability once theyre back into society. So i found it to be useful to compare the criminal Justice System to a couple of other systems we have. The medical system, and i dont mean Like Health Care insurance, but actual doctors and hospitals and the Education System, both of which certainly have their problems but if you look at the practice of minute, the course of treatment is decided based on the diagnosis and efficacy of various outcomes with similar patients of a similar profile who had that same illness or condition. Whereas in the criminal Justice System, the disposition of a case is often based on rigid rules. Similarly in the medical system the dosage and the type of treatment is adjusted based on the monitoring of progress. In the criminal Justice System we have laws such as truth in sentencing that preclude any change as the years go by. In the Health Care System you often see precautions taken to prevent relapse. In the criminal Justice System you have collateral consequences. For a second you look at the Education System which has its challenges, but you see that most states have accountability systems where schools are graded. You can look up your test scores and things like that. Some are even closed. And principals are increasingly given more power to innovate. In the prison system you see theres no data on the recidivism rate of different prisons. Wardens have little ability to innovate and you also see in the Education System the progress of each student is regularly assessed and an instruction is plan tailored accordingly. Those in the correctional system, you get cookie cutter approaches. Someone may be assessed when they come in and what is done is not really adjusted as time goes by. Now, of course, in the School System you also have kids who drop decide to go to private school or home school so it provides some rudimentary incentive even for Public Schools to improve. The criminal Justice System, the prison system, it grows to the extent it fails. The higher the recidivism rate, the more prisons are needed, the more government jobs and so forth. Of course, although in the Education System parents and students can sent vote with their feet and you have evaluations, in the prison system pretty much its out of sight, out of mind and the victims and the public who are the customers really have very little input. So those are some of the challenges i think that are that we see across the country. But fortunately theres a lot of good news that were seeing across many states, and so weve gone, in fact, from 1 in 100 adults in prison in the United States in 2008 to 1 in 104 today. Dozens of states have enacted sentencing reform earned time and other provisions and, in fact, 30 states have gone through the comprehensive justice reinvestment project where data is gathered and a task force is commissioned to develop sol luths to reduce recidivism. Most notable juvenile incarceration over the last 15 years is down 40 across the country. Now, one of the most significant facts is crime is actually declined more from 2008 to 2013 in the states that reduced incarceration than those that increased. So during that fiveyear period, there were 33 states where imprisonment declined and those states saw a 13 reduction in crime rate. In the 17 states where incarceration increased, there was an 11 reduction in the crime rate. And so what thats really emblematic of is incarceration is something that has diminishing returns. A lot of states have actually scaled back like ohio their six month to oneyear priss on term because youre not hardly incapacitating that person, but youre taking their job away and making society less safe. These are lowlevel offenses going to prison for short sentences. Let me highlight some of the different steps. These are Common Threads across different states. One of the big changes was in the 1960s there was a real belief in selfesteem approaches and thats really changed to what i would say are more accountability based treatment approaches like motivational interviewing and cognitive behavioral therapy. You have also had technological advances in the areas of medicine asibsed treatment, lek trobic monitoring and so forth that and finally actuarial risk and Needs Assessment where you can better match the right offender with the right program so we have learned a lot and i think thats been critical. And one of the things were able to do now is make sure we have the right level of supervision by using these Risk Assessments so some people can be on a probation caseload with 200 people, some may only need to be on a caseload with more intensive supervision, more reporting of 75 people. So youre able to better allocate your resources. Of course, problem solving courts. Weve seen a lot of states increase drug courts, dwi courts. In general drug courts have a 34 lower recidivism rate. What states are getting smarter about is making sure they dont put the low hanging fruit into these courts but instead they are people that would have been incarcerated. So i think the key with those is you have the judicial accountability and the judge who is a towering figure in the community who can marshal treatment resources around that offender. Also many states have adopted graduated sanctions to promote xlibs with probation and patrol. Nationally half the people coming into prison are people who have failed probation or parole and then within those half of those approximately are technical violators, people that did not commit a new crime but missed appointments, tested positive for drugs, left the county without permission. In texas and other states you cant have a glass of wine, you cant have alcohol whether youre on probation for shoplifting or something. Its totally unrelated. We need to streamline the conditions and tailor them to offenders. They are adopting a graduated approach. So if someone misses an appointment, they get a curfew, they get weekend in jail. You dont wait until all these tick nitechnical violations pil up and you revoke them to prison. The old approach is increasingly being phased out. A lot of states are adopting positive incentives for people on probation which can include earned time and those are more effective at incentivizing positive behavior than sanctions. So you have a few states like ohio and kansas who have actually adopted a statewide grid of sanctions and incentives thats proven successful in increasing the rate at which people are completing supervision. Earned time is a major area. You have the cornyn White House Bill in congress, but states such as georgia, texas, and ohio have recently adopted earned time approaches for people on supervision or incarcerated, and theres been a number of empirical studies in new york, wisconsin, Washington State that have found these earned time programs do increase the rate at which offenders complete program. Another stralt ji many states have funded is saying if you send more low risk offenders to prison, well give you a share of the savings. Typically these plans, theyre also tied to reducing recidivism as well as increasing the percentage of people employed and current on their restitution. In arizona this particular incentive funding measure led to 31 fewer new crimes by people on probation and a 28 drop in revocatio revocations. Another approach many kids are taking is to address the fact i said earlier 1 in 35 inmates are released without is up vition which is particularly troubling for people with Mental Illness who are on medications. Theres no followup and pew did a study back in 2013 in new jersey that found 36 higher rate of new crimes by comparable offenders released without supervision versus those sent on parole. Part of the way you pay for that is, of course, by not spending as much on prisons that you can reinvest that money into supervision. So now let me turn to just profiling several states that have adopted these types of reforms over the last several years and what the results have been and, of course, we say in texas it aint bragging if its true so natural im ink4r50i7nd to start with texas. Back in 2007 as many of you know, we were facing a projected increase in needing to build over 17,000 new prison beds and instead we adopted a justice reinvestment approach that involved 241 million for alternative programs expanding drug courts, expanding inprison treatment health, expanding outpatient programs and so forth. And so weve actually now closed three adult prisons. Our incarcerate is down 14 and our fbi index crime rate is down 29. 5 over that period. And so texas is, of course i think whats even more important is you look that our rate of people committing new crimes both on probation and parole has declined, and that actually zeros in even more than just looking at the crime rate decline. The case loads are lower, there are treatment beds that probation and parole officers can refer people to. We have a lot of work left to do in texas but it really has been very impressive. Now, South Carolina is another state that went pretty early back in 2010 with their justice reinvestment approach which included expanding drug courts, graduated sanctions. Reduced penalties on low level drug possession, risk Needs Assessment to guide supervision levels and reallocated 35 of prison savings to supervision. They saw a reduction of supervision revocations. They closed 2. 5 prisons in South Carolina since 2010. Good results there. And then North Carolina just neighboring South Carolina has also had a very successful reinvestment package back in 2011 which included also recuse f deucing sentencing for lowlevel drug possession, ad t adopting graduated sanctions and theyve had similar reductions in crime. Georgia is a state thats gone more recently and theyve expanded their drug courts from 28 to 42 while creating a safety valve. Theyve also addressed the reentry issue by expanding job considerations for inmates, giving judges aaddress when this comes to revoking drivers licenses. Since 2011 in georgia their incarcerate is down 8 and the index crime rate has fallen 9. 8 approximates. More recently utah adopted a very successful justice reinvestment package back in 2005. It reduced lowlevel drug possession to a highlevel misdemeanor still carrying the potential of jail time. They formalized swift, certain, and graduated snks saventions for probation and parole. Earned time for inmates completing programs. They established standards for drug Treatment Programs. Reinvested 14 million of the prison savings into the Treatment Program and allowed drug offenders to keep their drivers license. Alaska in 2016 adopted a major reinvestment package. They were facing 169 million in new prison costs if they didnt do anything. They have some unique challenges with People Living in remote locations and so thats one of the reasons they made expanding electronic monitoring part of the plan as well as citations. They addressed pretrial issues which were filling up their jails by saying people who couldnt afford bail assuming they scored well on the Risk Assessment would be put on pretrial supervision. They also reduced low level drug poe stetion to a misdemeanor and reinvested tens in millions in supervision and treatment. So let me just conclude by also mentioning one area we havent talked about too much which is not one that really impacts the prison population but is also one where states have shown the way and that is mens rea, the issue of criminal intent. So in the last couple years both michigan and ohio have unanimously through their legislatures and gvovernors passed a default mens rea position. If the criminal defense does not state a culpable defense, then recklessness would apply. In ohio it says if any bill is created to create a new offense it cannot go forward. I think its been remarkable how bipartisan and unanimous those votes were both in ohio in 2014 and michigan in twitc2015. In texas in 2015 our last session, we adopted the rule of lenity. If there are two or more objectively reasonable interpretations of a statute, if its vague a criminal statute, then the benefit of the doubt goes to the defendant. So this is another protection where actually ohio and florida have had in their law for many years. And really the reason for the rule of lenity is you have all these obscure criminal offenses. In texas we found over 1500 offenses outside the penal code. I really appreciate the chance to share these developments with you and i think what it shows is that states across the country are taking the lead and theyre doing it in a way that really is sustainable because it addresses both Public Safety and the fact that our prisons had grown out of control. So thanks very much. [ applause ] thank you very much, marc. Let me just take a minute. I know there are other folks out in the hallway. If everybody can kind of slide down. If somebody wants to grab a chair and if anybody doesnt mind letting some people get in the back corner well let everybody get set before we get started. Whoever wants to be nice and let people in. Also, as the panel kicks off since were all sort of stuck in a back corner there, i want to make sure people get some of the materials. We will pass around the program and a few other things, some materials including our statement of principles and people who signed on. Theres five chairs here. Grover is helping. Come forward, please. If you dont mind me in the shot you can sit behind. Chairs behind us. Dont make weird faces. It is live. You can tell members you work for that grover pulled up a chair for you today. Sit back here. Thank you everybody. A few brave souls. Im going to pass around some programs and other things that people might have had a hard time getting to. I will pass this to craig, the Vice President for advocacy at prison fellowship, one organization that make up along with texas Public Policy foundation. Craig has been doing a lot of good work on this. He was the michigan speaker of the house for several years. And he brings his perspective and will introduce other panelists so we can talk about this and leave room for questions at the end. Thank you. I was speaker of the house. I was 64 and had a full head of hair. This is what i look like now. Good to be with you all. On a couple of fronts we will talk about ourselves and the organizations and why were here supporting. Thank you to joe and mark and derek and the entire organization for the good work they do on bringing forward information so people can make informed decisions on a system that affects a lot of lives and the lives as significant a way as our Health Care System, our Education System. Its someones life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The victims of the crime that hold out expectations that the government will play a role in restoring them and the efficacy of our effort there and effects every member of congress when they go home and they are talking to people even if it takes a year or two off from being in the forefront of the National Debate and what the federal government is doing as it did around the 2012 election it comes back with gusto and right atop every newspaper every day and the 6 00 and 11 00 news when the members of congress go home. We all yearn for and look for solutions that work. My background is at the state level and local level. I was invited to work at prison fellowship which is one of the oldest and largest criminal Justice Reform advocacy organizations founded by a convicted felon who started it when he left prison. He was Richard Nixons political adviser. He waw convicted in a water gate related investigation and i had a chance meeting with him after a panel i was on in 2011 with grover nor quist. Thought my experience serving in office as conservative speaker of the house but also as somebody who lived in addiction for 29 years before entering recovery that i would speak into the debate. Prison fellowship often hires people and uses the voice of people who not only have an opinion but have criminal convictions, addictions and other things like we went through so we are not talking about those people, talking about ourselves. For us it is values and principles debate. So it is a privilege and honor to be here. It is a privilege and honor to serve with so many and it is a signer than i get the privilege of being as well as chuck colson before he passed away. Im going to invite to interject there. I will be moderating questions and my first is to go through introductions and the standard question for why their organization is here, not just them individually but why do the organizations care about this debate that is going on federally on criminal Justice Reform today. Derek, right on crime. I know that we assume people in the room know what you are here for. You are the host of the event. Tell us about what right on crimes interest is. Thank you. Well, i cant really add much to the texas specific reason beyond what mark so eloquently said. The reason, however, that we have made the segue into covering federal policy, as well, is think of it bit of trickle up policy reform. The success that we have experienced not only in texas but so many other states in the union, it just simply wasnt taken at the federal level so we made a concerted effort to get involved in the research and topic items that you are seeing now before congress presently. I think that with the work of joe and all the other Coalition Partners some of whom are here and some who are not i think you see that across the board not just on our side of the aisle but the other side, as well, you starting to see this become more of an important issue. It might boil down to Different Reasons why the individual groups are at the table. The fact that they are at the table under lines that something could be accomplished. Thanks. Dan schneider with american conservative union. Tell us about yourself and your background. You have to push the button. Now is it on . Dan schneider, executive director of american conservative union. We have been long supporters of criminal Justice Reform. I think rather than going through that history i want to ask a question and then make an assertion or two. Not everybody in this room is a conservative, i trust. I hope we can all agree on the proposition that incarcrating people is a bad thing. Incarcrating people deprives. We stand for the principles that the central role of the federal government is to protect life, liberty and property. If we are going to deprive people of their liberty, it better be for a very, very good reason. Pat noland should be sitting in this seat but he got Food Poisoning over the weekend so as his boss i get to sit in the seat, instead. He coined the phrase that we should put people in prison that we are afraid of, not people we are mad at. So many of our laws today are directed at people we dont like or that we are mad at, not people we are afraid of. I used to practice law years and years ago. When i was in law school taking my crimlaw required for graduation i was taught two things about the criminal code. What is a crime . That is the first question we had to answer in class. I suspect most people in this room may not know what a crime is. I was taught a crime is what a statute says is a crime. Thats not true today. There are lots and lots of things that are crimes that have nothing to do with statutes. The second thing i was taught in law school, i went to a fancy pants law school where we are supposed to know everything. The second thing i was taught is that to commit a crime you had to have the intention of doing the act that was violetive of the law. There are things that are crimes that a legislative body never voted on, things that never have to do with ones the tent or believe or knowledge. We have entered an era where we are locking up all sorts of people because we are mad at them and for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with our safety and driving up costs and more important than the cost it is depriving people of their liberty. I hope we can all agree that is a last resort response. Grover nor quist you are one of the more visible National Figures in the criminal justdous bait. You have committed to this for some time. Tell us about how you got here and what your organization focuses on. They can do whatever they want within reason. I was interested in the subject long before i got into marijuanas fmarijuana americans for tax reform. I thought it was a very important issue and zone for many reasons dan talked about. It is kind of rough on somebody if you put them in prison or execute them. You dont want People Living in fear who ought not to be. Spent a lot of time focussing on things people shouldnt do. We are good at figuring out that is a we havent spent as much time on things the government ought to do like being tough on crime. And i always assumed while the generals and prosecutors take care of that there is an awful lot of work to do. We need to look at those things the government ought to do and say how should this be done in the least expensive way and least expensive in terms of lives and families. So when you realize the left was not capable of participating and nobody is going to listen to them if they got the right answer in vermont nobody was going to listen to them. There is a wonderful chart that you have, texas was first state to work on criminal Justice Reform. Then you saw it grows out from red states from republican and conservative states. To civil Asset Forfeiture to fighting against overcriminalization to looking at licensing laws which keep felons from getting a job when they get out of prison. All of these things that are very good conservative positions have been adopted in republican states and now in some blue states as it has moved forward. So i think we need to spend as much time looking at the pentagon and criminal Justice System to reform them, not to abolish them as we do those programs that we would really like to see get smaller and or go away. When texas did this people look up so it is not one of these weak on crime things you are talking about here. I say they did it five years ago. Two election cycles and nobody lost an election so it is not only from a good place in terms of being serious about fighting crime. You saw wonderful numbers on crime going down while reforms, because these reforms are going through. And at the same time they want to know that it is safe that somebody wont yell out they are weak on crime. If these ideas had been thought up in vermont they would have gone nowhere because you couldnt have gone to people of missouri and say they have a great idea in vermont. Texas and other states that moved first have allowed it to move forward. I think the idea of federalism where we are getting more and more states to do this and now looking at federal government making similar reforms at the National Level we are not asking anybody to vote for something that isnt politically safe. We havent been using house seats, governors races on this. It has been a wonderful opportunity for conservatives to message i care and to mean it. The other model is pass it on states. Ten states have done it first. Do it in a bunch of states and show us it works. That is what the movement has done. I think it is a model not just for this issue but for others. We will talk about specific issues being debated in congress and the various bills but