Of biggest servicers accountable for breaking the rules, because they were more or less too big to fail. This has to stop. Past Performance Matters if the Department Grants another massive new contract to a company with a track record of harmling 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. That means holding these student loan servicers accountable. I know the 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 isaacson. Thank you for your great work, and thank you for calling in advance and asking what i would ask you so ud a week to prepare. Im married to an i. D. E. A. Teacher, worked with special education for years, always had a quarter with the 1 cap, because i believe that the iep ought to be required for every student in american schools to determine the best plan given their abilities. What are you doing to help ensure kids are identified for i. D. E. A. And what are you doing to give us the flexibility to make sure the kid can be assessed for the best of their intellectual capability . This was one of the topics part of the negotiated rulemaking. Consensus was reached both on the structure for the requirements for the 1 cap, and also the waivers process for the 1 cap. That consensus reflects the principle that we believe all students with the right supports and accommodations can ultimately succeed, except there is an important need to Pay Attention to the needs of those with severe cog any activity disabilities who may be unable to achieve at the same level. The negotiators tried to strike the right balance in defining the cap and defining the requirements for the waiver. I was kind of yielding in favor with the child every single time. We need to make sure theyre getting the appropriate, and the arbitrary cap is not the right way. Secondly on what senator warren was asking, arent all Student Loans now direct loans from the government . There are Student Loans taken through private lenders, but within the direct loan program, we have tried to put in place repayment options that we think will aids, by allowing folks to cap the person of their income as so . And the Service Agents are agents for the government, are they not . The servicers do work for us under contract. Unfortunately i think hits turkeyly those have not built in all the protections that they should have. We intend to insure that they do that would be our fault, not the servicers fault . At the end of the day the servicers also have responsibility to not try to read the contract to find loopholes to provide less than adequate service. Rather than focus on where weve been, were focused on where were going forward. The point i want to get to is this one of the biggest things we need to do is teach or kids to be response in managing their own money and Student Loans are a good way for us to do that. The more we focus to teach them, and understand repayment is an obligation not just a promise, i think well do better off. On the 95 assessment thresholds, we gave a lot of flexibility to the systems. I gave them a lot of flexibility to allow students to you opt their children off a are you familiar with that . I am. And system may fall below 95 . Is that not correct . Both nclb and have a requirement that states would assess all students. As you know, it has a specific richt for state action when participate falls beloaned 95 . Thats a goal and the state has the responsibility. If the state tunnel meet that goal, to execute a plan to get to that point, correct . Yes. In our regulation being under the 95 participation, and ultimately getting to the all student participation thats required by the statute. Are you sure theres options or mandates . Including a state determined option. I think our intention now chairman alexander tried to get us to do. As in their state plan, that would be subject to peer review. I think its important to carry out the spirit of the law, and the spirit of that law was to irges you have no authority in the law to prescribe thats the job of congress. Thats something we need to talk about. None whatsoever. Just to be clear none whatsoever. We describe options and states choose but you do not have the authority to define what options states may choose. The state has the specific authority and flexibility under the law to do that. Just to be clear the state defines what they watch to do. Although we describe options, the state is determining the approach. Thank you. Senator franken. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to talk about something thats a particular interest to me making sure that foster kids can state in their cool when they change foster parents. A young lady ended up going to hamlin, very much, a very impressive young lady. She missed fourth grade entirely when she changed parents. Very often the only constant in their life is their school. What has been going on is the kids who have a favorite subject, a teacher, an activity in their school that is the biggest constant in their life, friends for goods in sake, suddenly changed foster parents and are forced to go to a different school. Everyone sort of agreed, finally, and we got this done. The way we wrong it in e. S. S. A. , is the School Direct and the public well fair agencies have to figure out how to pay for transportation. To get the school so in your proposed regulation, School Districts are ultimately providing transportation for foster since its the Comment Period on that regulation, id like to comment and ill rather you go with your guidance. The guidance doesnt specify who ultimately is respond responsible. Irwould like the 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 the to stay in their schools. Thats my comment. I appreciate that. We share the commitment to educational stability. We try to stay in the guidance, the agents and School Districts should be working together and we offer best practice, including around dispute resolution when there are different perspectives. It is true in the regulations we try to offer a path for how those disputes would ultimately be resolved, but yes, we are taking comment, and will consider all comment, including yours. Thank you. I want to talk about Something Else that i work for to get in this bill. Given that one in five your have or will have a serious mental illness, i firmly believe that Mental Health is one of our countrys pressing unmet needs. We have a long way to go. A we include provisions, thats why i was very disappointed that the spending bill that passed out of the Senate Appropriations committee did not ploy funding for enrichment grants, which includes my Machine Health provisions and other 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. I have seen this work in School Districts that do this. Ive had roundtables with parents who say it has changed their family, it has changed their kids life. It has changed them. Yes, we share your disappointment with the proposed funding level for title iv. Certainly the president proposed a significant increase around title iv. 22 million of additional funding, because we would like to see more access to Mental Health illness among other limits that are addressed. We issued joint guidance with health and Human Services to help guide schools and districts, how to take advantage of the Affordable Care act to support schoolbased Mental Health, we think there are existing schoolbased Mental Health services. In that joint guidance. Also through our promise naked grant program, supporting efforts to match schools with communitybased organization and Community BasedHealth Providers to try to get those Mental Health services to kids and to families. On which times that has an impact on children as well. So i share your commitment, and would love to see the title 4b funding higher. I hope my colleagues share this commitment to Mental Health and schools so maybe we can get alternates 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 essa restores responsibility to states for their local schools by providing increased flexibility to design and implement snare education programs. Keyword here is local. Im glad too end the federal governments ability to use any tool to force states to adopt common core. If they want it fine, if they dont, thats the intent. In fact, just to be absolutely clear 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 Order Academy standards common to a significant number of states or assessments tied to such standards. Heres the problem. A high ranks education leader in kansas recently pointed out to me and the fact he wants to be anonymous is rather telling, quote it is not in our opinion that the new essa law based on the current version of the proposed regulation is giving states flexibility around developing a rigorous and accountability model. It appears that once again, he said we can only build something as long as it meets a strict federal requirement. That certainly sounds like to me, at least, that the department of education is not following the spirit and intend of the every Student Succeeds act. As everyone is aware, e. S. S. A. Has countless prohibitions explicitly stating that the federal government is prohibit fred mandating directing, coe e coercing or exercising any supervisor standards that states develop or adopt. The admission is prohibited from influencing incentivizing or coercing states or School Districts to adopt any specific academy standards. Now, mr. Secretary, i would like specifically like to bring your on attention to section 1005b of the act which states that states shall provide an assurance that the state has adopted challenging academic content standards. Let me repeat that. A state had only provide an assurance that they have adopted academic standards. Turns to appropriate reg lace 29916, which addresses the state plan for requirements for challenging and assessments, this section would require each agency to provide evidence, evidence demonstrating that it has adopted changing academic comment on 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. It is also contrary to your commitment to me with respect to the intent, as well as the explicit prohibitions of 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 eadvice rates the intent of congress and e. S. S. A. Mr. Secretary, would please explaining what i think is a blatant violation that clearly says a state need only to provide an assurance they have adopted academic standards. Let me say the law is clear on that point. We are clear on that point. Ive been clear on that point, as said in our prior conversation. The law, ensure that states have an assessment system, and that is fair to students other states and experience on assessment who participate in the process to ensure that the state has gone through a rigorous and reliability process are matching their standards. As part of that process, that peer review process, which is under way. Who are these folks against . Were doing a twostep here, not a one step. To check the box and we are assuring you we are doing that. And probably in writing, so that they can understand what they are, but youre saying this is a secondary step that theyre going through with a whole bunch of other folks who have to stay we are providing evidence. I dont know what that means. Is it a lot of paperwork . What is it . And as part of that process, the peer reviewers who are the peer reviewers . They would include experts on assessment, who would participate what . The big 1 . What are we doing here . These are folks who work in other states and have word on assessments, who try to ensure that the assessments are fair and reflect the law, consistent with the law. What states are doing is providing evidence of a process by which they have aligned their assessments. But we said assurance. We didnt say this is two different things, and now youve got a peer review folks, perhaps theyre helpful, but again they could just check the bock with assurance as opposed to providing evidence to i dont know how much peer review but it seems we need further discussion on this. I appreciate your response. And we are hope to feedback on how to make absolutely clear that standards are set by states. Thats clearly a shared commitment. I think theres a peer review from my distinguished colleague in kansas perhaps that would not be received in open law and probably from kansas to massachusetts would be the same thing. I apologize for my colleague. Thank you, senator roberts. Senator bennett. Thank you very much for holding this. Thank you for your leadership. In colorado last week e. We came together and had an essa summit. Theres a lot of excite about being out from under the no child left behind and make sure we have the rigor. I know you yourself were a former principal of at school, i wonder if you can talk about what the department is doing to ensure that the voices and people working 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 had held over 200 meetings with educators, parents, community leaders, as we have worked to develop regulations and guidance, and received over 700 comments from individuals and comments from over 700 individuals and organizations. At the state level, we put out a Dear Colleague level, laying out recommendations and best practices. I think lots of states are doing a good job, so that they can participate. Some states have you to engage, so weve been on enquurgeing School Officers put out a guide to stakeholder organization. Aung weve had made clear its required. Certainly it is true that we have devolved the responsibility for implementation back to the states, and that in a fairly significant way. How do you expect over time well be able to identify those places where they are setting a rigorous standards for kids in places where its a less rigorous standard, and what do you expect the conversation to be like . On one of things the department is going to need to be vigilant about is the law provides a lot of flexibility in schools that are struggling or low Graduation Rates. And i agree with that president i think theres not any other reason for the federal government to not be involved in education. Could you talk about what the department is doing that that spirit is maintained and the commitment to equity that i think everybody shares we try throughout the accountability, to preserve the guardrails, making clear that and for all subgroups, not just at the summit level, but each of the indicators they have put in place that states need to have a clear process in place for identifies schools that have been consistently underperforming subgroups and meaningful intervention, that theres clear around equitable access to resources so we can ensure that schools are providing opportunities to our students of color, our lowincome students, our students with disabilities, but this work is going to require continued vigilance on the part of states and direct to make sure we dont let kids fall through the cracks. There are no federal models, as they were in child left behind, and i just wonder when youve thought that through a bit. About how people are going to have the research they need to implement targeted school xwroeismt strategies in this new world . Its very important that folks do that informed by evidence about what works. On certainly in 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 states, as they move progressively forward, if schools arent making progress, they need to rely on stronger evidence as they move through the levels of intervention, because we do have some good evidence around interventions that work. We know that in schools with struggling english learners, professional development for teachers working with english learners, using dual language strategy has a strong Evidence Base. We want to make sure folks are think being that as they plan their intervention. Thank you, mr. Secretary, thank you mr. Bennet. March chairman as i have listened to the debate at this hearing today, i am reminded of a provision that i wrote that was included this 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 Banks Committee actually held a hearing on what was the on intent of the collins amendment. Needless to say i was the leadoff witness. I started off by pointing out that i was collins, i am collins, im still around, and i know what my intent is,r. I would saying 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 secretary education act. I want to talk about the requirements in your proceeded regulations. I think we can all agree that transparency is essential, but reporting requirements should not be so onerous that small school sims in rural states have difficulty in complying unless they were 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 Regulation Establish many more reporting requirements than required by the law. They include among other things how states calculate and report data on the report cards, Additional Data for Charter School students, and procedures for calculating reporting, district and school expenditures. Two questions can you point to specific authority in essa that you believes that allows the department to appropriate these additional reporting requirements which appeared to me to be contrary to the intent of the law . And second how how does the department square his additional reporting requirements with the man dade in the law that report cards be concise, understandable and accessible. We believe the requirement are consistent with the statute. We certainly are open to feedback on the reporting requirements, as writer to the entire regulation. We look forward to feedback from stakeholders. But again we are open to feedback and if there are places where folks thing theres already an existing data report that addresses something, were open to consolidating those. S. 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 rating from 3 ratings categories for each school. You act requirements that states evaluate their schools on academic and nonacademic factors, but it does not require that each school be given a single ratings. So here we go, we seem to be going in the proposed regulations away from the new innovative educational aprompts in favor of maintaining the status quo, and the inflexible requirements of no child left behind that were discouraging to teachers, parents, administrators, and opportunities align. How does a summative rating that essential reduces a school to a single numb or letter grade support the goal of state flexibility, which was a fundamental premise of the rewrite of this law. Just to be leer. The summative language does not require the use of a letter grate or numerical index. A state could use those, but a state could also use categorical system consistent with the statute. The statute requires states identify schools for comprehensive supports, that states identify schools for targeted support and there would be schools in neither of those categories. So it envisions a thats consistent with youre rating approach. Also to identify the bottom 5 of schools that will get that comprehensive reports, states will need a methodology to identify those schools that will require relative comparison of school performance. So we think the summative rating is exactly consist president with the statute. I would beg toe differ, bring my time has expired. Thank you, senator collins. Senator casey. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thanks for being here today and for your testimony. We all want to make sure that we are 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. 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 socalled best act was included to make sure that states and school crickets implement evidencebased activities to strengthen the teaching profession and keep Great Teachers in the classroom. Could you describe the work your he department is doing to provide an february i have been professional development. . Also in improvement teacherss ability to serve and around the use to support highquality professional development, we also are supporting states as they implement equity plans to effective teaches. Rely heavily. We also have a number of professional Development Programs that are part of the Education Innovation and research or i3 program, as those evaluation come back, well have even a broader Evidence Base around Effective Professional Development strategi strategies. I appreciate that. We cant seek to i want to ask you as well, its an issue that i think senator bennet raised earlier. I want to expand upon it a business. This question of engagement by stakeholdser, its always the intent i wanted you to give under the circumstances a sen of how do you measure that . How do you demonstrate that kind of engagement . I want to get your sense of where we are in engaging all of those critical important stakeholdsers. There are some encouraging signs, the School Officers issued a guy pointing out best practices. They did that in partnership i think with over 30 organization, civil rights organizations, educator organization. I think that was an important step with states. As i talk with state chiefs, ive heard about efforts to do 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. But theres certainly a range. The reason we issued the Dear Colleague later is there were concerns in some states theyve been slower to do that. And the other challenge is getting the release time from their districts to participate in these activities. We wanted to encourage states to be very active in gets their districts to make sure they can participate fully. I appreciate that. We just want to hear all those voices, especial ill submit for the report the work on suspensions to try to reduce the use of that. Before the committee, that relates to the cancellation in the state of alaska of the alaska measures of a progress, the amp assessment, as you know, we were compelled to cancel that statewide assessment because we had significant widespread totally unexplained and unfixed technical problems that prevented students from being able to complete the amp. A lot of frustration as i mentioned to you. That 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 rirlt to assess during the 1516 school year. The question this morning is will you approve the states waiver . As you know, weve been in close communication with leadership in alaska. I think we are awaiting the submission of some materials describing what took place as part of their waiver application. How much time do you think you need . This is obviously very important to the state of alaska. In the past in these situation, its been a matter of weeks weve needed to review the materials submitted by the state, including the states plan to make sure that they have a system in place youve had it some time now, but youre saying you are require Additional Information . We can have staff follow up on the details. I know there is information we are waiting from the state on the events that occurred and their plans to ensure next year theyll be able to implement assessments consistent with the law. I think as weve had the conversation its not that they wish to avoid assessment, but when you have things totally beyond your control, when kansas basically goes dark, and you cannot complete the testing, it is a situation that calls out for review and waiver. We would ask you to move on that quickly. You have indicated you are wait fog information from the state. I am still waiting for some information from your offices. When you were before the committee in april, you committed to make sure that my office was looped in as the department and the state worked through the assessment vendor. Im told we are still waiting for answers to some 13 different questions that we sent to you. Can you commit to me that you will get these questions answered to me by the end of the week here . I can certainly look into it, i dont know if some of those answers to the questions are tied to the materials we are waiting, but i would certainly follow up. I would appreciate your diligence on that. Then i would ask you about a diversity priority that you have proposed to add for all of the departments k, 12 and post secondary competitive grants. This priority would require all applicants to seekp increase diversity. I understand that schools and campuses can satisfy the requirement by investigating the barriers, changing policies, creating or expanding School Choice or changing how funds are allocated to schools. I think we would all recognize that in increasing diversity in our schools is a worthy goal. I also understand the concerns about outcomes of students that are enrolled in some of our nations very high poverty schools. But weve got a different situation in alaska, and i hope you recognize it. We have some very, very isolated regions in the state. These are regions, bigger than most other states. Poverty is high, the population and in most of them is almost entirely alaska native. 80 of the community in alaska are not often accessible by roads. Oftentimes its transit in the winter, so we know the barriers. Many are barely able to sustain a k through 12, so schools choice is not an issue. Allocating funds, itsd still an isolated school geographically islanded. So the proposal could prevent many, many rural districts, and many of the campuses from qualifying for any competitive grants from the department. Of course these are just exactly the grants that are designed to help the schools serve these students better. So i would ask if you would look at this proposal and either redraft it so that schools in places like alaska that are so remeet and are so unique are either exempt from this proposal or rescinded altogether. We cant chaerk the facts e. What do i do . This priority would not be automatically applied. But then wouldnt we be left out of the furnisheding opportunities . As we develop grand programs, which is one of the considerations we would have whether fae ublt for all the applicants to purr sigh this priority. Would would certainly take into accounts issues of geological isolation as we assemble a grand application. I would ask for ot states, but again redrafting. Thank you, ms. Chairman. Thank, chairman, thank you secretary king. One, there was a mull you schools element. We understand you do not intend to propose any regulations in that area. We are working to get a consolidated view to work with you on guidance were to the middle school requirements, so thats a preview of coming attractions. I wont hold you to anything until we have done our homework. The second issue has to do with the provision of the bill related to Innovation Schools. As you snowe, if you are a very, very big fancy foundation with a lot of money and you have an innovation idea, you have a very strong capacity to push that idea into and through the multiple layers. Education, bureaucracy. The concern that led to the invasion schools element in the bill and you dont have a Big Foundation or group, you want to do what is best for the kids, you look out at multiple layers of forest. Then if you can get through that, theres the second layer of the state apparatus, and how am i going to get through . And if you get through those, what do you do with the federal oversight apparatus. Unless there was a path illuminated through the forest we thought a large amount of innovation because of the journeys that were never done, because they took a look at the multiple layered forest in front of them and said, you know what . Not worth or effort. I have no idea how this could possibly turn out. So to ming there, in the group that worked with me on this, to be able to move invasion out of the just big like intellectual centers and foundations, to have it happen in schools is a really important thing. I wasnt in the conference, so i cant vouch for what happened in conference. But i would very much like to hear from you now, as you look at the Innovation Schools piece, what the intentions are, how seriously you stake this, and if theres a role at the school developmented, rather than for Big Foundations to be the champions. I dont have any thing against bin but i share your commitment on middle schools. On the Innovation Schools, i think the way that essa and others Work Together creates specifically more space for innovation. Certainly eliminating that, a School Intervention aapproach for new states and districts to innovate in those schools that need to improve their performance. Object guys that have fallen into that try. For a school that is innovating pretty well, unless you tell me Something Else, you do need a path, because at the local school level, they have no way of knowing, nor do they have the administrative resources to attempt how they would get through that multiple set of bureaucratic obstacles and hurdles, all required in front of them. I think the way we have approached it creates quite a bit of face in terms of the federal role. Theres no obstacles through some of the existing but certainly happy to continue to talk about ways that we can encourage that. The principle of this is that if the there can be a process of alignment where the municipality, the federal government agrees that it will step out and let innovation happen if the state and municipality have all done the same thing and if certain requirements have been met at the school level from the get go to show that this is a community supported, stake holder supported, teacher supported, you know, well developed effort. To say that were not going to stop the State Government from doing it is a little different than saying we accept there should be a path that is lit for schools to do this, so they know if they follow this path can get to a result, rather than just, like i said, a lot of these journeys were never begun and who knows what the price was for the children from the journeys never begun. I think thats right. The spirit behind our teach to lead work, where weve worked all over the country to bring together teacher leaders to develop innovative projects in their schools and districts, certainly as we think about the guidance well put out around title two, well highlight the kinds of flexibility thats helped the teach to lead projects to thrive, but open to continuing to talk about ways we can further encourage that kind of state and local space for innovation. Its a shared commitment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Do you have any concluding remarks . I just want to comment on the socalled summit, and you answered the question, i know theres been some discussion about that. Under our bill, states are required to develop accountability systems to hold schools accountable to judge school performance. States are required to do that. Because we wanted to make sure that we have better information to help states determine which schools are high performing and which ones need support and to provide that information to parents, as well, the bill also requires states to identify their lowest performing 5 of schools, high schools with Graduation Rates at or below 67 , and schools with consistently underperforming subgroups, so i did want to clarify, i do appreciate your response to that. I think we want to make sure this bill works, we want to make sure parents have information, schools have information, and the resources flow in the direction that we need them to go to, so i appreciate your response. Thanks. Thank you, senator murray. Id like to put in the record a letter from the network for public education. Dear senator alexander, when the every student succeed act was proposed, we would have preferred the limitation of mandated annual testing. We believe under essa, parents, teachers, and citizens would have a better voice. Were, therefore, deeply disappointed in the regulations put forth by secretary king. Its apparent hes seeking to maintain federal control of state accountability systems, despite the law, we believe hes attempting to rewrite the law and extend federal overreach, in some cases even beyond what was under no child left behind. Well include this in the record with specific items. Mr. Secretary, i thank you for coming and listening. I think that if i understood you correctly about the timeline that senator murray mentioned, that i mentioned, that states can expect to have more flexibility in terms of transition year than a year of implementation and then a year of identifying schools, then the regulation would appear to offer, and if that is the case, i hope youll make that clear to states soon. I think if you do that, that will be seen as a welcome demonstration of flexibility and the fact that youre actually listening to the feedback that youre getting and comments on the regulation, so would you expect that before long you would make that clear . Well, again just did . I think i have, but i will say, the key question that i hope states will comment on is in the schools that they are providing Additional Support in 1718, how they will identify those schools. Will that be carrying over the schools from 1617, schools that are newly identified using the existing system, or schools identified using the new indicators if they are available, but this is a case weve made clear to state chiefs and others, we are eager for folks feedback and look forward to responding to that comment in the final regulation. One other just general thought, let me use common core as an example, as senator roberts was talking. Sometimes when i say we repeal the common core mandate, some people have said, well, really wasnt a common core mandate. Well, there really was, because why you didnt say every state has to adopt common core, the secretary said at the time in order to get a waiver from the requirements of no child left behind, youve got to adopt challenging standards that are common to a significant number of states or get your State University system into it, and, in effect, about the only way to meet that requirement was to adopt common core, and thats what 38 out of the 42 states who got their waivers did. So i caution you against any attempt in the regulation to do as senator roberts was saying a two step. Youve said very clearly, just as the law says, state sets their own academic standards, but if the mandate makes it look like you can reject the evidence, and by rejecting the evidence, reject the standard, why then that that goes around the barn door. Do you envision that, you would say to kansas that you may set your standard, but we dont like the evidence you used to set it, so, therefore, were going to reject the standard. No, what were trying to do in the regulation is describe the longstanding peer review process that align with their standards. Certainly, if theres any lack of clarity around states prerogative to set their standards, we want to emphasize that and open to language that makes that even more clear. I appreciate that. One place to look, the use of the word demonstrate as opposed to the word assure. That word was carefully chosen. Assure means let you know weve done it, demonstrate means prove it to us that you did it. Those are different words, so i appreciate your response. I think thats a constructive response. I think this has been a good hearing, and i appreciate you coming. This is the fourth hearing weve had on the implementation of this act. Ill conclude the way i started, we want this to succeed, we want you to succeed, and wed like for the teachers and School Board Members and parents around the country to have the same feeling about this law at the end of this year that they did at the end of last year, which was one they were pleased to see to senator murray and others, as well as the republicans on the committee, came to a consensus, resolved our differences, created a period of stability, and restored more responsibility to people closest to them, children. If we could end the year with that same sort of feeling, why, youll have done a really good job, so will the president , and so will we and we can step back and let the teachers, school boards, and states have this new era of innovation. Thank you very much for coming, i look forward to hearing the conversation. The hearing record remains open for ten business days, you can submit additional questions within that time, thank you for being here today. The committee will stand adjourned. The Republican National convention is live from cleveland this week. Watch every minute on cspan. Listen live on the free cspan radio app. Its easy to download from the apple store or google play. Watch live or on demand any time at cspan. Org on your desktop, phone, or tablet, where youll find all of our Convention Coverage and the full convention schedule. Follow us on twitter and like us on facebook. To see video of newsworthy moments. The Republican National convention all this week on cspan