Legislative Update: March 2015

This week saw K–12 education policy mixed up with larger Capitol Hill politics in surprising developments that played out (and are still playing out) on Friday. The partisan fighting around funding the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which will shut down on midnight tonight absent legislative action, mingled with touchy immigration policy politics earlier in the week. Then, as tempers flared toward week’s end it affected the House floor debate of legislation to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). A full day of debate of the Student Success Act (HR 5) on Thursday started with Democrats using their time to instead theatrically ask repeatedly that a “clean” bill to fund the DHS be brought up instead of debate HR 5. Using procedural rules to beat back that request, debate of the Student Success Act went on for hours. 

As of Friday morning, Republican leaders found themselves staring down a fiscal cliff of sorts, but debate of HR 5 continued. However, between the drama around DHS funding, the partisan tone of the debate on HR 5 and the math around the votes needed to approve HR 5, the bill was pulled from the floor before a final vote was requested. (A summary of the floor debate can be found here.) The turn of events doesn't bode well for Congress’s ability to stay true to their commitment to pass all of this year's federal spending bills via regular order. Even a temporary spending bill that would have funded the agency for three weeks stunningly failed to pass the House. The new Congress committed to exhibiting its ability to govern has spent over a month, and counting, on one spending bill that should have been passed five months ago. And the debate, regardless of the end result, is ending in partisan and inter party discontent within the Republican Caucus resulting in high-drama. The rancor could very well spill into March's activities, which will now include HR 5, a permanent spending bill for DHS and the House and Senate FY 2016 budget resolutions.

While the spending disagreements stole the national headlines, education advocates were hard at work even before the Friday train wreck. The process of getting HR 5 on the House floor started late last week when Members began deciding what amendments they might want to offer. Over 140 amendments were filed with the House Rules Committee by the 3:00 pm Monday deadline. The Rules Committee then decided that just over 40 amendments could be offered on the floor. The White House issued an expected veto threat. And the House started debate of the bill Thursday. 

As expected, the debate was largely a partisan one, with issues like testing, accountability, STEM education, afterschool programs, early childhood education, college and career ready standards, flexibility and portability among the topics of various amendments. A particularly controversial amendment that was adopted would allow districts to develop their own assessments. If Republican Leadership cobbles together the votes needed to pass the measure, House lawmakers and education advocates will look to the Senate for action on their bill. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Ranking Member Patty Murray (D-WA) continue to be working hard to get a bipartisan bill to the HELP Committee for a mark up and then on the Senate floor as soon as possible. Alexander has said he would like to hold a markup in two weeks. That’s a tall order. And the unexpected series of events in the House is not helping.

House and Senate staff should watch season three of House of Cards this weekend. Maybe there are some helpful hints in there from the Underwoods.  

International Teaching Survey
On Wednesday, the American Institutes for Research (AIR) held a webinar, “International Contrasts in the Teaching Profession: Results from the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS).” Emily Davis, teaching fellow at the US Department of Education (ED), began the discussion by highlighting the results of American teachers in the 2013 TALIS. She noted that American teachers have high participation rates in professional development (PD) activities compared to their international peers, in which 84 percent of US teachers participated in PD courses and workshops, and 49 percent attended PD conferences in 2013. Davis asserted that despite these numbers, many of the group PD activities that teachers participate in are not always proven to be effective and that teachers need to be engaged in more personalized PD with a stronger emphasis on leadership. She suggested for teachers to attend Teach to Lead summits—a partnership between ED and the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards—to help teachers learn about effective leadership strategies that can help them produce better outcomes for their students. Melinda George, president of the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF), highlighted additional results of the 2013 TALIS, stating that 89 percent of teachers in the US are satisfied with their jobs, but only 34 percent think that teaching is a highly valued profession. She noted that US teachers spend more time teaching in the classroom, at 27 hours per week, than their international counterparts, but they spend less time [on average] collaborating with their colleagues compared to their international peers. During the question and answer portion of the webinar, Davis and George advocated for more personalized PD for teachers, increasing the dissemination of TALIS results, and sharing effective practices that allow for more teacher collaboration and development. For more information, go to this link.

Administration Opposes H.R. 5; Issues Veto Threat
On Wednesday, the Executive Office of the President sent a statement of administration policy to the Chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee John Kline (R-MN) and the 11 cosponsors of the Student Success Act (H.R. 5) opposing the bill and threatening to veto the bill if passed as is. The letter listed a number of issues that the White House has with H.R. 5 which include: the disapproval of Title I portability; the failure of the bill to remedy achievement gaps and inequalities in access to resources; the lack of investment in high-quality preschool and support for America’s teachers and principals; and the inadequate authorization of appropriations levels that would freeze federal education spending. On Wednesday afternoon, the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics (WHIEEH) held a webinar on P-12 education, civil rights and equality to further discuss the Administration’s education initiatives and their opposition to H.R. 5. John King, senior advisor of delegated duties of the Deputy Secretary of Education at the U.S. Department of Education (ED), touted President Obama’s Budget Request that included a $2.7 billion increase for education programs in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) that consists of a one billion dollar increase for Title I programs. He further stated the Administration’s priorities to include preschool programs in the ESEA reauthorization; modernize teacher and principal professional development programs; invest in innovation; and increase investments in high-need schools through Promise Neighborhoods, Native Youth and English learners initiatives. King asserted that the Administration is creating a crossroad movement to strengthen equity and opportunity in [education] investments, which he contrasted with the Student Success Act in stating that H.R. 5 takes a step backwards from equity and diverts education funding from the students and schools that need it the most. View the White House statement on H.R. 5 at this link.

STEM Education Act
On Wednesday, the US House Representatives passed the STEM Education Act of 2015 (H.R. 1020) with overwhelming bipartisan support, 412 to 8. An almost identical bill was passed with bipartisan support last Congress and had the same sponsors—House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Representative Elizabeth Esty (D-CT). The bill includes three main provisions: 1) it redefines STEM education (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) to explicitly include computer science; 2) it directs the National Science Foundation (NSF) to continue to award competitive merit-review grants to support informal STEM education; and 3) it amends the NSF’s Robert Noyce Master Teaching Fellowship program to allow teachers in pursuit of a Master’s degree to participate in the program. Although the bill received widespread bipartisan support, the Ranking Member [of the Committee] Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) stated her displeasure with the STEM definition in the bill which does not include the addition of “other academic subjects that build on these disciplines” that was included in the bill that passed the House last Congress. She further asserted “I will support this bill today, but I hope that the Senate will be wiser than we are being in defining STEM. This is not just semantics. How and what science is taught in our nation’s classrooms is essential to our future economic competitiveness, national security, and overall well-being.” For more information on the STEM Education Act of 2015, go to this link.

CTE Issues in the Reauthorization of ESEA
On Thursday, the Senate Career and Technical Education (CTE) Caucus held a briefing, “Career and Technical Education in ESEA Reauthorization: Ensuring College and Career Readiness for All Students,” to discuss the vital importance of preparing students for college and career readiness through 21^st Century skills. Kimberly Green, executive director of the National Association of State Directors of Career Technical Education Consortium (NASDCTEc), began the briefing by noting the common goals of both the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to make sure students graduate from high school college and career ready. She further mentioned that the average high school graduation rate for CTE students is at 90 percent compared to the national average of non-CTE students at 81 percent, representing a strong connection for CTE education as it meets ESEA requirements. Phillip Lovell, vice president of Policy and Advocacy-Comprehensive School Reform at the Alliance for Excellent Education, spoke about the positive engagement that CTE offers to students which helps encourage students to graduate from high school. He also offered three recommendations to bridge the connection between CTE and ESEA, that included: 1) for Senators to cosponsor the Career Ready Act of 2015 (S. 478); 2) to integrate more professional development programs that connect CTE to other academic subjects in Title II of ESEA; and 3) provide a targeted funding stream that supports increasing high school graduation rates through CTE programs. Matt Gandal, task force facilitator for the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) Task Force on Improving Career Readiness, discussed his work on the CCSSO task force to improve the stigma of CTE programs in states and to make sure all students are career ready. He noted three recommendations that came from the CCSSO report, “Opportunities and Options: Making Career Preparation Work for Students,” that include listing the employer community as lead partners in refocusing CTE efforts; raising the quality of CTE preparation programs to ensure that all programs are embedded in pathways aligned with workforce needs; and incorporating career readiness indicators in schools to make CTE matter to students and schools. A few CTE teachers at the briefing expressed the need to reauthorize ESEA in order to eliminate high-stakes testing, allow for more class time for other subjects that are not federally mandated by assessments, and eliminate the highly qualified teacher provisions that limit the number of CTE eligible teachers. For more information on CTE issues, go to this link.

Afterschool Caucus Touts Increased Demand for Programs
On Wednesday, the Senate Afterschool Caucus held a briefing, “America After 3PM: Supporting Student Success Through Afterschool and Summer Learning Programs,” to discuss the positive effects of federal funding for 21^st Century Community Learning Centers (21^st CCLC). Jodi Grant, executive director of the Afterschool Alliance, began the discussion by stating a few findings from the Afterschool Alliance’s 2014 report, “American After 3PM: Afterschool Programs in Demand.” The report found that 10.2 million children, nationwide, participate in afterschool programs—with an increasing demand of 19.4 million children that would be enrolled if a program were available to them—but 11.3 million children remain unsupervised from the hours of 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., during the peak times for juvenile crimes. Grant further mentioned the overwhelming bipartisan support from parents that are satisfied with their child’s afterschool program and support public funding for the program, in which the report found that for every one dollar invested in afterschool programs nine dollars are saved by reducing crime and welfare costs, improving a student’s performance at school and increasing a student’s earning potential. Courtney Reeve, executive director of Greenbrier Learning Center in Arlington, VA, reiterated the large impact that afterschool programs have on student learning and emphasized the need for more collaboration between schools and afterschool programs. She asserted that the three imperative parts of a child’s day [that affect their learning outcomes] are school, afterschool and their home life. Reeve outlined the success of the Greenbrier Learning Center in assisting with these influential parts of a student’s day in three ways: 1) collaborating with local schools to provide transportation to extend their afterschool programs to include additional afterschool support from the Greenbrier Learning Center; 2) partnering with members of AmeriCorps to help students transition and connect lessons from the school day with afterschool programs; and 3) offer parent connection programs to help parents get more involved with their child’s school and help support effective learning at home. John Fischer, Deputy Secretary of the Vermont Department of Education, ended the panel discussion by noting Vermont’s use of, and continued need for, 21^st CCLC funding. Fischer noted findings from a recent report, “Every Hour Counts: Vermont Students Succeed with Expanded Learning Opportunities,” that equated expanded learning time to keeping kids safe, inspiring learners, helping working families, addressing opportunity gaps and supporting Vermont’s vision for education. He further argued that small states [like Vermont] need community partners and dedicated funding streams to achieve gains in education. Fischer closed his remarks with recommendations for the federal government to dedicate funding that allows leveraged investments in education; permissive uses for federal funding to include broad education engagement and community organizations; and a competitive grant that creates a state readiness determination for scalability and sustainability of successful expanded learning programs. For more information about afterschool programs and the Afterschool Alliance, go to this link.

ESEA Reauthorization Process
On Wednesday, the RAND Corporation held a briefing on “Reauthorizing ESEA: Congress’ Role in Improving Assessments, Accountability, and Teaching Effectiveness.” Brian Stecher, associate director of RAND Education, began the discussion by criticizing Senator Lamar Alexander’s (R-TN) discussion draft to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) because it had two options for assessments, which he believes defeats the purpose of requiring assessments in federal legislation. He argued that the federal government should design assessments based on a defined purpose or list of objectives that will help to create requirements [federal mandates] for states—instead of the current model that moved directly to debating requirements without defining what they hope to achieve by doing so. Stecher gave a few successful examples of the federal government defining a purpose for mandates before creating legislation to achieve their means, such as the creation of the No Child Left Behind legislation and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). He also noted that assessments should be used to signal the value of a subject in a nation, or state, and Stecher rhetorically asked the audience, if that is the premise to mandating assessments in certain subjects, than why aren’t all STEM (science, technology, education and mathematics) subjects tested in our schools. Laura Hamilton, associate director of RAND Education, followed Stecher’s remarks on assessments as she drew connections between high-stakes assessments and accountability systems that exacerbate test preparation in classrooms. She outlined the need for a new accountability system that promotes flexibility, transparency and improvement; encourages reporting multiple indicators to show school success which would also address differences amongst educators; focusing consequences on school improvement efforts; and promoting high-quality, secure data systems that can inform decision making. John Engberg, senior economist at RAND, spoke about the importance of teachers and school leadership, and asserted that the best investment in education is improving and retaining effective teachers and school leaders. He argued that teacher evaluation systems should be based on multiple indicators in order to identify the strengths and weaknesses of teachers and to develop individualized professional development options for them. Engberg also advocated for more professional development for school leaders in order to properly evaluate and support teachers. For more information on the briefing, go to this link.

Markup of H.R. 5
On Wednesday, the House Education and the Workforce Committee hosted a very well-attended, ten-hour markup to debate and amend legislation to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The bill was last reauthorized in 2002, and Congress has been trying to reauthorize current statute since 2007. The debated bill is a revised version of the Student Success Act (H.R. 5), which was passed by the House in June 2013. Committee Chairman John Kline (R-MN) reintroduced an updated version of the bill on February 4 and decided to bring H.R. 5 directly to markup without holding a single hearing, which infuriated the Democratic Members of the Committee. After a 10-hour markup of H.R. 5—with the consideration of 26 amendments—the Democratic substitute amendment failed by a party line vote of 16 to 21, along with 18 other Democratic amendments that were defeated. Chairman Kline’s manager’s amendment, as further amended through the proceedings, was passed by a vote of 21 to 16. The bill will be reported out favorably to the House by the Committee, with an expected floor debate during that last week of February. Washington Partners wrote a full summary of the markup, which can be found at: http://wpllc.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/HouseEandWSSAMarkupFeb112015.pdf and for an archived webcast of the markup, go to: http://edworkforce.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=398329.

Tech and Student Data Privacy
On Thursday, the House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education held a hearing, “How Emerging Technology Affects Student Privacy,” the Subcommittee’s first hearing in the 114^th Congress. Members generally agreed on the importance of leveraging technology in the classroom while maintaining student data privacy. Subcommittee Chairman Todd Rokita (R-IN) argued that it is imperative to hold “bad actors” accountable, but affirmed the innovative uses of technology in the classroom that are evident by the success of individualized, blended and distance learning. Chairman Rokita asked the witnesses to conclude the hearing with succinct takeaways for Members to consider. Shannon Sevier, vice president for advocacy at the National Parent Teacher Assocation, advocated for parents to be consulted [more often] on the use of their children’s data and for clearer permissible uses of student data in schools. Allyson Knox, director of education policy and programs at Microsoft, claimed that it is possible to “strike a balance” in protecting students data while encouraging innovative learning. Dr. Sheryl Abshire, chief technology officer at Calcasieu Parish Public Schools in Lake Charles, LA, urged the Subcommittee to carefully consider the effects of changing the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and to seek professional input throughout the process. Joel Reidenberg, founding academic director at Fordham Law Schools’ Center on Law and Information Policy, said that a modernization of FERPA should protect all student information, not only educational records, and that privacy protections should be required by all participants, not only schools. For more information, go to: http://edworkforce.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=398317.

High School Graduation Rates
On Thursday, the U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) released data that showed an increase in public high school four-year graduation rates from 80 percent in 2011-12 to 81 percent in 2012-13. Based on the new adjusted cohort graduation rate metric—that states, districts and schools have been using since 2010—Iowa, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota, Texas and Wisconsin are among the states with the highest public high school four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate. Graduation rates [in the US] have increased for three consecutive years, which Secretary of Education Arne Duncan called “another record-setting milestone” for America’s students. John Gomperts, president and CEO of America’s Promise Alliance, commented on the increase in high school graduates noting that nearly two million additional young people have high school diplomas over the past decade. For more information on high school graduation rates, go to: http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-high-school-graduation-rate-hits-new-record-high.

Proposed Teacher Prep Regulations
Monday was the deadline for submitting comments to the Department of Education (ED) on their proposed teacher preparation regulations that were released last November. ED received nearly 3,500 comments from teachers, institutions of higher education, teacher organizations and other education stakeholders that mostly opposed the proposed rule. Many of the submitted comments argued that the proposed regulations were federal overreach, flawed measures that would yield biased results, and an increased cost to states for collecting the proposed data. The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) submitted comments to ED that outlined concerns that the proposal would require costly reports from states, pointed to a lack of evidence in the feasibility of rating teacher preparation programs, and asserted that the package would exacerbate inequity issues among low-income and minority serving communities. Only a limited number of comments were supportive of the proposed rule from groups such as Democrats for Education Reform, Teach Plus and the National Council on Teacher Quality. Final regulations are scheduled to be announced in September and a pilot year of their implementation will begin in spring of 2018; full implementation is planned for April of 2020. For more information on the teacher preparation regulations, go to: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/02/04/us-teacher-prep-rules-face-heavy-criticism-in.html.

Roundtable Discussion on Innovation
On Tuesday, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) held a roundtable discussion titled, “Fixing No Child Left Behind (NCLB): Innovation to Better Meet the Needs of Students.” It was the third—and final—scheduled hearing regarding the NCLB reauthorization. Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-TN) convened the roundtable by noting nine points of contention that he asserts need to be resolved to better serve the goals of K-12 education. He also strongly criticized the federal government for becoming “mandaters” in K-12 education policy instead of enablers of quality teaching and learning. Ranking Member Patty Murray (D-WA) focused on a child’s right to a quality public education—one that would make them ready for success in college or the workforce after high school graduation—in her opening remarks. She asserted that it is the role of the federal government to empower innovation in states to close achievement gaps and provide opportunities for students to succeed. At the end of the roundtable discussion, Alexander gave each panelist the opportunity to share brief remarks on points and arguments they might want Committee members to take away from the discussion. Notably, Dr. Susan Kessler, executive principal at Hunters Lane High School in Nashville, TN, declared that we must stop using “one test on one day” to evaluate student performance or to blame teachers and districts; she emphasized the need to recognize the teaching profession in a positive way, as teachers have devoted their careers to helping children. Dr. James McIntyre, Jr., superintendent of Knox County Schools in Knoxville, TN, noted that the federal government should assure that every state has rigorous expectations and standards, but it should not dictate those standards. He also stated that reasonable accountability systems, tied to standards and objectives, would allow for flexibility and innovation in schools. Dr. Robert Balfanz, research professor for the Center for Social Organization of Schools at Johns Hopkins University School of Education, asserted that schools need to implement evidence-based teaching in conjunction with evidence-based student support. He suggested that some portion of Title I funding be available for these strategies in exchange for regulatory relief. Henriette Taylor, community school coordinator at the Historic Samuel Coleridge-Taylor Elementary School in Baltimore, MD, stressed the importance of wraparound services that provide for the health and wellbeing of students; she emphasized that wraparound services are necessary for a teacher to successfully teach. Ken Bradford, assistant superintendent of the Louisiana Department of Education in Baton Rouge, LA, noted the need to preserve annual assessments and accountability because they allow us to know if innovative solutions are working. These assessments are not weapons, he said, but tools to drive innovation and transparency. In closing the discussion, Alexander said he hopes to have a final bill “soon.” It has been reported unofficially that he intends to markup a bill later this month. For more information about the hearing, including written testimony and an archived webcast, go to: http://www.help.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=b7082021-5056-a032-5289-1341f4ce3f01.

School and Workplace Opportunities
On Wednesday, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce held a hearing, “State of American Schools and Workplaces: Expanding Opportunity in America’s Schools and Workplaces,” that covered a broad range of issue areas, including, career and technical education, early childhood education, the minimum wage, the demand for manufacturing jobs, immigration, and other topics. The hearing—the first of the 114^th Congress—revealed priorities for some new Members of the Committee and demonstrated the frustration of Democrats at Chairman John Kline’s (R-MN) quick timeline for consideration of legislation to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Governor Mike Pence (R) of Indiana testified as a witness and discussed his vision for high schools in his state—a vision that includes more school choice and pathways for career and technical education. Throughout the hearing, bipartisan support for career and technical education was evident, with the caveat that such pathways do not eclipse traditional academics. The future of manufacturing was discussed at length, with Democratic Members favoring an increased minimum wage and modernized labor standards that include paid sick leave, while Republican Members argued against increased federal control, contending that regulatory burden will hinder America’s global competitiveness. For more information about the hearing, including written testimony and an archived webcast, go to: http://edworkforce.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=398288.

School Choice
On Wednesday, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) spoke at an event at the Brookings Institute, “The Future of School Choice,” to discuss his opinion on school choice as it relates to the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), in coordination with the Brookings Institute’s release of the “2014 Education Choice and Competition Index (ECCI).” The ECCI ranks school districts based on the degree of choice available to parents, using as indicators the types of schools available, the effectiveness of the choice process, funding available for school choice, and subsidies provided for poor families. Alexander opened his remarks by recalling that in 1992, as Secretary of Education, he predicted that the barriers to school choice would be resolved by the year 2000. Alexander stated his assumption that the reason comprehensive school choice has not been achieved is because not enough people have been pushing the issue and asserted that now is the time to make progress for school choice and overtime school choice will prevail. Throughout his speech he insisted on the importance of the federal government allowing Title I money to follow children to whichever school they attend, as if it were “put in their backpack.” He declared that Title I money is not adequately reaching low-income children and that portability is the best way to ensure the money gets to the right place. He also questioned why many people approve of choice when it comes to preschool and higher education, but not as it applies to elementary and secondary education. The same goes for vouchers, he asserted, stating that Pell grants and federal loans are types of vouchers to which no one is opposed. During the question and answer session, Alexander asserted that the role of the federal government should be providing options to states and requiring standards and accountability, but allowing states and districts to determine the methods they choose to pursue. To view an archived version of the event and for more information on ECCI, go to: http://www.brookings.edu/about/centers/brown/ecci.

Forum on ESEA
On Thursday, Ranking Member of the House Education and the Workforce Committee Robert “Bobby” Scott (D-VA) conducted a forum with committee members, educators, researchers and advocates in an effort to better inform efforts to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). In his opening statement Ranking Member Scott said, “Unfortunately, the Republicans on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce have chosen to move forward with their reauthorization process without holding a single committee hearing or seeking any input from Democrats.” Over the course of three hours, panelists presented their perspectives of success in current statute—known as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)—as well as their views on the House Republican ESEA bill. Michael Casserly, executive director of the Council of Great City Schools, noted that the funding mechanisms in Chairman John Kline’s (R-MN) ESEA reauthorization bill will “fatally undermine the intent of Title I funding and lead to a ‘disinvestment’ in public education.” Katrina Kickbush, a teacher at Wolfe Street Academy Public Charter School in Baltimore, MD, spoke to the need for continued targeted funding in high need districts and schools, such as hers in Baltimore. She also stated that adding a “student growth dimension” to teacher evaluations would help that process truly reflect the type of education that schools are providing. Katy Neas, executive vice president for public affairs at Easter Seals, highlighted key outcomes that are a direct result of greater access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities (e.g., increased graduation rates) due to NCLB requiring that the performance of all students mattered “for the first time in our educational history.” Kati Haycock, president of the Education Trust, said we need to “double down” on educating our students and to “not let up” on annual assessment and accountability for performance and graduation outcomes for all students in a new ESEA reauthorization. For an archived version of the forum, go to: http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/blog/watch-live-committee-holds-forum-esea-reauthorizationrewriting-no-child-left-behind-nclb-most.