The subcommittee on early childhood elementary and secondary education will come to order. I note that a quorum is present. Without objection, the chair is authorized to call recess at any time. Good morning. Academic excellence is the
foundation of K12 education. Every student deserves access to a great education, to the highest quality education possible. All students benefit when schools set high expectations and provide pathways to success. Policy makers and educators should focus on
expanding access to rigorous academic opportunities. These are common sense principles and yet they are increasingly being abandoned in school districts. across America. Instead of helping students overcome challenges and reach their full
potential, too many stu schools are prioritizing uniform outcomes or what is called equity over student achievement. Such policies do a grave disservice to all students and particularly limit those from disadvantaged backgrounds.
We can see this trend in three areas. gifted and talented education, equitable equitable grading, and charter schools. Let's start with gifted and talented programs. These classes are overwhelmingly popular with parents.
According to a 2024 Ed Choice Morning Consult poll, 63% of parents said it was at least very important that their child's school offer advanced academic classes, while only 8% expressed that it was not important. There's also considerable evidence that gifted education is good for kids. As Johns
Hopkins professor Jonathan Plucker sum summarized the research, acceleration is one of the most studied intervention strategies in all of education with overwhelming evidence of positive effects on student achievement. Despite this, gifted education is under attack.
In New York City, there are efforts to scale back the city's gifted and talented program. In California, San Francisco Unified actually spent a decade preventing advanced eighth graders from taking algebra 1. Now, San Francisco eventually reversed course
based on evidence that it actually harmed low-income and minority students, but not before California's instructional quality commission urged schools throughout the state to eliminate K through10 accelerated math. These policies are bad for everyone.
They prevent high achievers from reaching their potential and make it more difficult for students of all achievement levels to receive the instruction that will lead them to success. Perhaps most perversely, these policies that are promoted in the name of equity actually deny students from
less advantaged backgrounds the opportunities that will help them advance. And this has been validated by studies repeatedly. Academic research has shown that when you have objective identification standards in place for students eligible for advanced
instruction, it actually triples the number of students from minority and low-income backgrounds that are enrolled in those programs. And the reason that perversely these sort of policies that are promoted in the name of equity actually widen achievement gaps is that
our public school system is of course where uh students can get a education that's open to all that doesn't cost anything. And so when you uh close off that pathway for access to advanced learning, then it's only those who have
the means to seek out other pathways such as tutoring, such as private schools, such as enrich enrichment activities and extracurriculars who have access to them. Another misguided policy is so-called equitable grading. Despite its laudable goals, in practice, this
recent innovation often means that common sense practices such as penalizing late work and failing students for cheating are deemed problematic. Portland public schools offers a case study. Teachers weren't instruct teachers were instructed in 2023 to discard traditional yard sticks
of student student performance, including homework assignments, attendance, and small evaluations like quizzes. It's hard to imagine what policy could what a policy that could be more destructive to academic excellence, student motivation, and integrity than this. This false notion of equity in
practice limits student growth and widens achievement gaps. Nowhere do we see this more clearly than in the opposition to charter schools, which are perhaps the greatest force for expanding educational opportunity in America today. Stanford's uh noted credo studies
have shown that urban charter students gain 40 additional days of learning in math. That is a remarkable result. There's virtually no other education reform with such a track record of success. Yet all too often, instead of trying to replicate these results for
all students, political interests have attacked charter schools and their leaders, denied them equal funding, capped their expansion, and propagated myths in an attempt to deny the charter success story. Here are the ultimate stakes in this
discussion today. By any measure, America is falling behind other nations when it comes to academic achievements in our schools. We see this in test results now. We also see it in terms of uh how many leading researchers our
country is producing in key STEM areas uh as opposed to other countries. This is a grave threat to our future and we must act with urgency to change the trajectory that will involve many important reforms to make our schools work better for students. But above all,
it requires a renewed commitment to excellence in American education. With that, I yield to the ranking member for an opening statement. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and and thank you to the witnesses for your testimony. I'll start by saying that gifted and talented programs, advanced
placement, AP, international balorate, IB, and dual enrollment courses, they do offer extended and expanded opportunities for students. But I'll also note that engaging rigorous coursework that expands critical thinking skills should be available to every student regardless of the
existence of special programs. It's one of the primary goals of ESSA's Title 4A student support and academic enrichment provisions on well-rounded education. But as is the case with all curriculum decisions, the federal government's role is to provide funding and research, not
to decide what is taught or how in what type of program. Decisions about curriculum and screening for these programs are made by states and local districts. Because of that, the selection process and makeup of programs like gifted and talented programs, they
vary widely from district to district. That being said, one unfortunate reality does hold true regardless of locality. The students who benefit from the system are disproportionately white and wealthy. In many districts, access depends heavily on parent advocacy,
early screening, prior placement decisions, teacher referrals, or simply whether a student attends a school that offers advanced coursework. As a result, access to advanced coursework options can vary sharply by race, by income, by English language ability, geography, and
school type. Black and brown students are more likely to be denied access to those programs. and students with disabilities often lack access to rigorous coursework even when they have the potential to succeed academically with or without reasonable accommodations. I will note that it's an
ongoing challenge to understand the majority's position in this committee. It seems that it's all about local control. Unless and until it's something that the majority wants to have Congress decide. I also challenge the title of today's hearing which is how equity policies undermine excellence and harm
students. Let me be clear. Equity and excellence do not conflict. Well-designed evidence-based equity practices allow all students to reach their full potential without being hampered by bias, information gaps, or resource limitations. It is both cruel
and factually inaccurate to argue that expanding access to gifted programs makes them less excellent. All students should have the opportunity to pursue their dreams and get the education that's best suited for them, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation,
socioeconomic status, or zip code. Students sitting side by side with peers who look or sound different from them doesn't diminish the learning experience. It improves learning for everyone. Widening the doorway to excellence is not the same as lowering
the ceiling. What does harm students, however, is that schools and districts are struggling from a lack of resources. In part because of Republican policies, including attacks on public education. The Trump administration is illegally dismantling the Department of Education,
causing chaos and confusion for districts, schools, and families. Secretary McMahon has frozen funding, delayed grant awards, and awarded waiverss to states used to use funding however they wish, weakening accountability measures put in place by Congress to guarantee the equitable
distribution of funds. This administration has fundamentally harmed the ability of Congress to improve and strengthen our public school system. And as I've pointed out to this subcommittee and to the full committee ad nauseium, the federal government does not dictate
curriculum, but it does and it should promote equity and education and close funding gaps so all students have the opportunity to succeed. This has been the federal role in education since then President Lyndon Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
into law in the 1960s. Importantly, researchers at the Institute of Education Sciences, IIEEES, they conduct critical work to understand, for example, how gifted and talented programs can remain academically rigorous while accessible to students
from diverse backgrounds. Unfortunately, the Trump administration's disastrous cuts to IEES funding decimated their ability to continue studying these trends and guide states and districts to the best practices for gifted education. I hope my colleagues who care so much
about this topic will join me in advocating to reinstate IEES funding. Without long-term sustained federal investment, schools and educators will lack the tools, the resources, and importantly, the research they need to teach all students effectively. Instead
of throwing taxpayer dollars at school voucher systems, we should be putting that money toward the public education system, which has been the backbone of this country for century and where about 90% of all US students attend school. Finally, a word about test scores, which
I know several witnesses will discuss. Assessments are important, but the well-intentioned yet disastrous in imple implementation, No Child Left Behind, led to highstakes testing that was used in a punitive way, which in turn led to
narrowed curriculum, teaching to the test, and a distrust in standardized testing. What we need is highquality assessments that are used by educators with assessment literacy to inform instruction, not to punish schools or students. And we should also stop
comparing the US and our test scores, which come from more than 12,000 very diverse school districts, with test scores of students in countries with universal healthcare, robust early childhood education, paid family leave, and in some cases, a lot less poverty.
All of which matter to student success. So instead of demonizing public education, Congress should be uplifting it. We must give schools, district and the states the resources they need to succeed to fill the uh opportunity gaps and of course we must conduct oversight
of states so all students have those opportunities and the opportunities and the skills they need to thrive. I look forward to today's conversation and I yield back. Pursuant to committee rule 8C, all members who wish to insert written statements into the record may do so by submitting them to the committee clerk
electronically in Microsoft Word format by 5:00 PM 14 days after this hearing. And without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 14 days to allow such statements and other extraneous material noted during the hearing to be submitted for the official hearing record. I'll now introduce our witnesses. Our first witness is Mr.
Daniel Buck, research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute here in Washington DC. Our second in uh witness is Ms. Wewa Chin, founding president of the Chinese American Citizens Alliance of Greater New York in New York City.
Our third witness is Ms. Michelle uh Turnage Young, senior counsel and co-manager of the Equal Protection Initiative at the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund in Washington DC. And our fourth witness is Mr. Paul Runo, senior director of K12 initiatives at
Defending Education in Arlington, Virginia. We thank our witnesses for being here today and look forward to your testimony. Pursuant to committee rules, I would ask that you each limit your oral presentation to a three-minute summary of your written statement. As committee members have many questions for you, the clock will countdown from 3
minutes. However, pursuant to committee rule 8D and committee practice, we will not cut off your testimony until you reach the 5-minute mark. I'd also like to remind the witnesses to be aware of your responsibility to provide accurate information to the subcommittee. I'll
first recognize Mr. for your testimony. >> Good morning, Mr. Chairman, ranking member Bonamichi, and distinguished members of the committee. During my time as a title one uh teacher in title one schools, I watched as expectations for students only got lower and lower, all
in the name of equity. Every standard to which we used to hold students, from memorizing basic math facts to writing a simple prayer with proper grammar, was deconstructed by progressives. I watched as their policies ruined schools and
cottified into law the soft bigotry of low expectations. And I sit here today frustrated because those who champion equity advanced the policies that make schools only worse for our students. The clearest and most recent example of this trend is Mayor Maldani's promise to
eliminate it gifted and talented education in New York City. Despite his own privileged educational journey from the Bank Street School for Children with an annual tuition over $60,000 to the elite Bronx High School of Science.
Likewise, in 2014, San Francisco removed the option for eighth graders to take algebra, which resulted only in fewer students taking advanced classes overall and larger achievement gaps on standardized tests. Removing gifted programs doesn't solve inequities.
Instead, it closes off often the only route that underprivileged students have to advance learning and the career pathways that come from it. at the school and district level. Equity grading. These are policies of lenient grading scales, uh no zeros grading, no
homework, um unlimited retakes, no late work penalties. This equity grading is yet another policy pushed by progressives that accomplishes lower standards and depressed achievement. Large majorities of teachers oppose it in several studies have confirmed that students learn more and achieve more
when they face tougher grading. If you allow students to turn in shoddy work, late work, or no no work at all, then that is precisely what they will do. Conversely, if you set high standards, hold students to them, they will reach them, and they will be grateful for it
in the long run. Many prominent Democrats have also opposed charter schools despite the fact, as you alluded to, Mr. chairman that attendance at urban charter schools results in the equivalent of 40 additional days of learning per year in math and 28
additional days of learning per year in reading. Expanding access to charter schools is arguably the single most promising policy to close the achievement gap and yet Democrats oppose them regardless. In every case, progressives have implemented a regime
of equity in which everyone gets nothing. And in every case, the policy solution is simple. Keep standards high. I've had a front row seat in schools for the last decade, watching as progressives have waged damaging wars against merit, all in the name of
equity. I want to thank this committee for the opportunity to speak and I implore you all to reject equity policies and instead adopt an excellence agenda focused on high standards, merit, and academic rigor. Thank you again. >> Thanks very much. I'll next recognize
Mrs. Chin for your testimony. >> Uh distinguished chairman, ranking comm member, and subcommittee members, thank you for the opportunity to testify. uh a friend, a school parent who's volunteered countless hours
to starting a new school in New York City called NextGen Technologies High School and also worked closely with a principal, found a principal, found a space and got a thousand applicants to
this new school. twothirds of them black and Hispanic the applicants. Yesterday it was announced by the chairman of the board the what we call the policy uh education policy uh
panel said that for equity purposes we will stop and end next gen. Next generation technologies was supposed to address AI, computer
science, technology issues for kids of any race, any economic background. This was killed. What is equity which stops our next generations?
What matters to our next generations? Merit matters. Merit matters. Every time you board a plane, you turn on your phone, you do an internet search. When
you're on the operating table, you don't want a surgeon chosen by equity. You want one chosen by merit. We need high objective standards in our schools at every level, especially in
STEM. American innovation, prosperity, and national security rely on our top worldclass STEM talent. And how are we doing? The US spends among the most per student
in the world. Yet our outcomes lag top performing countries and we don't produce the highest skilled workforce that we need. By eighth grade, American students trail top performing countries in math roughly three to four years.
They don't catch up either. By age 15, they're still three to four years behind. These are based on TIMS and PISA scores, assessments that are very objective. By our nation's own report card, only 22% of our 12th graders, and these are
the ones who are still in school, are math proficient. and math proficiency is a very low standard. These aren't small gaps. This is systemwide failure. And what are we doing with districts
reducing rigorous academics in favor of non-academic frameworks like social emotional learning, culturally responsive pedagogy, and equity initiatives that take time from core academics and inject social or political agendas into the classrooms.
Merit-based programs like gifted and talented and accelerated tracks which have long helped advanced students learn at the right pace are being as in New York we've mentioned it several places here already reduced or diluted due to equity
selective public high schools that historically produced top STEM talent face challenges they are also being attacked nationally top rated schools like Virginia's Thomas Jefferson Boston Latin and New York Specialized high
schools styson Bronx Science have relied on objective merit-based exam admissions. Recent changes for equity though have lowered standards, reduced advanced coursework, discriminated against Asian-Americans,
and weakened academic results. This is the wrong direction. We've already lost our global lead in STEM. From AI to semiconductors to quantum computing, lowering standards and abandoning merit only widens gaps. Instead, we should
expand high quality merit-based schools and programs strengthen objective academic measures and support accelerated education. New York specialized high schools show what merit can do. These are poor kids
in most cases in these schools. Their graduates include 15 Nobel laureates. That's more than what most countries in the world have and include generations of innovators whose work
benefit all humanity. When we abandon merit, we harm our shared future. For America's future, we must recommmit to excellence, rigor, and merit. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. I'll next recognize
Miss Turnage uh for your test turn for your testimony. >> Good morning, Chairman Kylie, ranking member Bonam Nichi and other distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Michelle Turn Young. I serve as senior
counsel and co-manager of the Equal Protection Initiative at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund or LDF for short. Founded by our nation's first black Supreme Court justice, their good marshall, LDF is America's premier law
organization fighting for racial justice. As a nation, we cannot afford to forego the benefits of the talents of any of our children. Our national security, our ability to compete in a global economy with scientific and
technological innovation, and the health of our democracy depend on producing leaders, workers, and a well-educated, civically engaged citizenry capable of navigating and thriving in our increasingly racially diverse society. Given this, every child should
have equal access to a quality public education regardless of their income, where they are growing up, or their racial and ethnic background. Yet, this administration has attacked policies that are both legal and necessary to ensure that students that
all students are afforded equal educational opportunities. In particular, this administration has attacked efforts to remedy the vestages of degree segregation, instruction about systemic racism, programming, training, and affinity groups that support
students, and efforts to remove obstacles that unfairly deny students a fair chance to compete for admission to selective programs. There is no basis for the federal government's narrative that equity policies or diversity, equity, and
inclusion are somehow incompatible with the pursuit of excellence and high standards. Rather, by supporting students and ensuring that measures of merit are actually objective, these policies heighten standards and promote
excellence. Rooted in decades of efforts to achieve equality for all. Well-designed diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility programs are not only legal, but they have helped open doors for millions of Americans by addressing discrimination and ensuring
that everyone, regardless of race, gender, sexual identity, religion, creed, disability status, national origin, and more, has equal access to opportunity. For example, universal screening for gifted and talented programs has been attacked as an equity
policy. However, one study showed that merely giving every child a chance to take the IQ test instead of only screening those referred by teachers resulted in a 180% increase in the share of disadvantaged students who were identified as gifted, including many
black and Hispanic students, lowincome students, English language learners, and girls. Rather than attacking lawful efforts to advance equal educational opportunity, LDF urges Congress to take to work to take these five steps towards ensuring
that all students have a fair shot at getting a highquality public education. First, Congress must use its authority to immediately halt all efforts by the current administration to unlawfully dismantle the US Department of Education.
Second, Congress should increase Title One funding, incentivize state and local educational agencies to implement evidence-based policies that support students, and expand grant programs that advance school disegregation, like the Equity Assistance Center Program and the
Magnet School Assistance Program. The Magnet School Assistance Program provides critical funding to support the development and operation of magnet schools that bring together students of different racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds. while the Equity Assistance Center provides support to schools in complying with our
federal anti-discrimination laws. Third, Congress should repeal the federal private school voucher program and reinvest in public education that serves all students. Fourth, Congress should help create the conditions necessary to welcoming professionals from all walks
of life into the ranks of the nation's cadray of teachers. Fifth, Congress should work to ensure that the US Department of Education, the US Department of Justice, and other federal agencies are fulfilling their mandate to enforce anti-discrimination laws. That
means that rather than abandoning some school disegregation cases and ending others, the United States Department of Justice should fulfill its obligation to ensure that school districts that previously engaged in the jury segregation cure their long-standing constitutional violations by eliminating
the vestigages of duration to the extent possible so that students can enjoy an equal opportunity to get an education. That also means that the Department of Education, other federal agencies, and other federal agencies should cease their attempts to end instruction on
systemic racism, programming, training, and affinity groups that support students, and efforts to remove obstacles that unfairly deny students a fair chance to compete for admission to selective programs. In some, talent is everywhere, but opportunity is not. In
order to achieve excellence leverages the full universe of talent in this country, Congress was must work to eliminate entrenched barriers to equal opportunity that can unfairly disadvantage many hardworking talented students. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. And lastly, I'll recognize Mr. Rono for your testimony. >> Chairman Kylie, Ranking Member Bonamichi, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me. My name is Paul Runo and I'm the senior director of K12 initiatives at Defending Education. A growing number of American
public schools are minimizing or eliminating merit-based opportunities in the name of so-called equity initiatives. These policies reduce academic rigor, complicate the measurement of student performance, and ultimately leave all students worse
off, including those they are meant to help. First, gifted and gifted education and advanced learning opportunities are increasingly being throttled across the country. School systems have reduced or eliminated gifted and talented programs and access to advanced coursework. In
theory, this would level the playing field. In practice, it slows the progress of high achieving students while failing to meaningfully support those who are academically struggling. The real world ramifications of limiting merit-based opportunities are clear. In
San Francisco, the district eliminated algebra 1 in middle school for over a decade, arguing that it would improve equity. It did not. Only recently has the district restored algebra as an option at all middle schools after a test period showed that students with
access to algebra made dramatic academic gains. Second, grading practices are being altered in ways that can obscure student learning. So-called equitable grading policies have been implemented in school districts. These approaches remove accountability measures such as
penalties for late work, attendance, or even cheating. In some cases, they establish grade floors, giving students a minimum grade regardless of performance. While these changes may increase reported grades, they do not necessarily indicate increased learning.
More importantly, these policies risk sending to the message to students that effort and mastery are optional. But accurate grading is not punitive. It is essential. Students and families deserve clear, honest feedback about academic
progress so that gaps can be addressed. Third, we are seeing a broader cultural shift away from recognizing and celebrating academic excellence. In some district some districts traditional forms of academic recognition have been scaled back or eliminated. Examples
include eliminating the honor of validictorian, discontinuing honor roles and class rankings, and not designating honors classes on official school transcripts. These decisions reflect a view that celebrating excellence is harmful to the
success of struggling learners. But intentionally not recognize achievement does nothing to address gaps in student performance. It simply makes them harder to identify and address. In conclusion, merit-based education is not about giving opportunities to some students
over others. It is about ensuring that every student is challenged, evaluated honestly, and allowed to reach their full potential. We have a responsibility to help all students become the best versions of themselves. Expanding access to gifted and talented programs, maintaining high
standards and grading, and recognizing achievement are not barriers to bridging academic gaps. They are essential to addressing them. Thank you. Thank you very much. Under committee rule nine, we will now question witnesses under the fiveminute rule. And
I will first recognize the chairman of the full committee, Mr. for Wah Wah Wah Wah Wah Wah Wah Wah Wah Wahberg of Michigan for 5 minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for having this hearing. It's increasingly uh at least visible to me as I watch and
and then hear what's being said that there is a whole industry that speaks to victimization and wants that continuation because it profers them the ability to have organizations and funding that they
wouldn't get otherwise. and it's hurting kids and it's hurting our future and to prop up the US Department of Education when they cannot show one success since 1980 and three trillions of
dollars spent and our scores are going down and we're falling behind other world countries. So, I'm glad you had this hearing today. gifted, talented, um, expansive education opportunities seem just to be common sense.
I won't take time to define that right now, but thank you for the panel for being here, Mr. Buck. One common critique we hear of gifted education is that it's bad for minority students.
I have three minority granddaughter students who if they don't have gifted opportunities, they will be wasted in their academic excellence opportunity. That's not just saying because I'm their grandfather. I watch them. I see what they can do. In reality, I think that
gifted programs are a vital lifeline for marginalized students to get education they need. Do you agree with me and why? >> Thank you for your question and yes, absolutely I agree with you. Um, I worked in the highest crime zip code in
Milwaukee and there I taught some of the most gifted students that I ever had the pleasure to teach. Um, when it came to their standardized test scores, they uh blew out of the water students that were from the other side of the tracks. And it's essential that they have access to
gifted and talented programs because without the resources that come with affluence, the leisure time from coming from a two parent household, often the only chance they have at gifted and talented programming, any kind of advanced coursework is through schools. They cannot afford additional tutoring.
They cannot afford um you know all of these uh uh supplemental educational opportunities. So gifted and talented programs are their chance to get those. And the research finds that students from impoverished backgrounds, gifted and talented programs disproportionately
benefit them for this reason without spillover negative effects for anybody else in the school. >> Yeah, they're going to get gifted and talented programs. Just depends what those are and we want the positives with education opportunity. Thank you, Miss Chin. Thanks for the work you do in
charter education. Another argument we hear sometimes is that wealthy students benefit the most from gifted programs and that disadvantaged students are rarely accepted to these programs. Why do you think gifted programs are essential to lowincome families?
>> I I would say on the contrary that uh that the the disadvantaged are not doing well on this. If anything, I agree with you that we have to continue these programs because they help the disadvantaged.
Without that, the wealthier people can probably find their ways. Okay? They know where to go and get the tutoring, have the educational opportunities, but I think that we have to have gifted and talented programs larger, faster, more
widespread to every corner of this country. And that's the way we're going to be able to reach all of the students. They benefit. >> That's true. Equal opportunity, isn't it? >> Absolutely. >> Thank you, Mr. Runo. You mentioned that parents over surprise surprise, parents
overwhelmingly um want more education opportunities and options for their kids in high uh quality programs. And I think most parents most parents want the best education opportunities for their kids.
Why do we know uh or excuse me, what do we know about how much parents want these programs when Democrat politicians constantly seem intent on cutting off these options? There's two things that come to mind when you pose this question. The first
is uh there was a poll done last year uh by a group called Place NYC, a great parent group out of New York City. um after uh Mayor Mandani had said that he wanted to get rid of gifted and talented in kindergarten and their poll showed that nearly half of the parents surveyed
would not enroll their children in New York City public schools if the gifted and talented program was eliminated. So that's a fair chunk of parents. Also, when San Francisco Unified had reintroduced algebra into middle school, the school board president had said at
the time, quote, "Families want to see a public school system that offers rigorous coursework." >> Yeah. Well, thanks for that and I yield back. Uh, the ranking member, Representative Bonamichi of Oregon, is recognized. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you to the witnesses. interesting conversation and uh certainly with gifted and talented programs, they're designed to help students meet their full potential. Every student should have an opportunity to meet their full potential. Uh and Mr. Chairman, uh I I just wanted to to ask a question. Um uh
Miss Turning Turnage Young, excuse me. In Oregon, more than half the state is federally owned land. So many rural schools have faced years of budget instability, staffing shortages, and aging infrastructure, making consistent federal support through the bipartisan secure rural schools legislation
essential to meeting baseline educational needs. These communities, like many rural areas, uh depend on federal investment to provide students with stable and highquality educational opportunities. So, so from your perspective as a civil rights litigator, is sustained support for rural schools
an equity-based initiative? And how does providing rural communities with the resources they need can how does it contribute to meeting the educational needs of their students and advancing equal opportunities nationwide? >> Thank you for that question. LDF has the
honor of representing many students who attend rural school districts. And so we're familiar with a dynamic where the school district itself might not have the most robust property tax base. And because of that, they might have less funding to fund teacher salaries and the
salaries of school mental health professionals and others who are supporting our students. Um the school the securing rural schools program is essentially uh closing that funding gap for many of our schools across the country. That is absolutely a program
that is just as much an equity program as many of the different initiatives that have been attacked for being equity programs um recently. Um, I would say that educational institutions, workplaces, health care systems, the military, and more have used programs that have been attacked as equity
programs to develop programs and policies that are rooted that are rooted in fairness and are responsive to everyone's needs. These are programs that are helping to ensure that all of us, regardless of where we live, who one is, what social or economic barriers uh one faces, can receive fair treatment
and have fair access to the resources necessary to actually have equal access to opportunities. >> Thank you. I I'm going to get to another question. I appreciate that. Um, in 2017, the United States Supreme Court ruled that school districts must provide individualized education programs or
IEPs that are appropriately ambitious and reasonably calculated to foster academic progress for students with disabilities. And although these decisions are made at the local level, the Department of Education does play a critical role in providing guidance, technical assistance, and oversight to
see that school districts are meeting this obligation to disabled students. So again, Miss Turnis Young, Congress charged the Department of Education with implementing IDA. Are you concerned that this administration will shift responsibility for IDEIDA out of the
what's left of the Department of Education as they've done with other programs? And what would such a shift of responsibility mean for students with disabilities? >> Yes. Um LDF is concerned about um the moving of many of the responsibilities
of the US Department of Education out of that department. That department has long handled those matters. They've developed uh expertise and institutional memory concerning how to best serve students in that way. And so by introducing these changes, we risk not serving students as well. Notably, in
fiscal year 2024 alone, OCR, or the Office for Civil Rights of the US Department of Education, received nearly 23,000 complaints overall, and 37% of those were actually alleged disability discrimination. Um, unfortunately, from what we know of the way that that um
office is currently operating, those complaints are not being attended to, which of course denies our students an equal opportunity to get an education. >> I appreciate that. I have another question. Um, again, Mr. turned his young. We've heard some comparisons this
morning um of United States uh students test scores. Um United States has thousands of school different school districts, different school boards across many states obviously. Uh would students do better in school if we had
what these other countries have? Many of them they have a national system but they also have universal healthcare. parents have paid leave. Early childhood education and child care is accessible and affordable. And that makes a big difference in how kids start in in
school and in life. So would it would the these comparisons make sense to compare the thousands of school districts across the country with countries that have universal healthcare and low poverty rates? No, that comparison is not apt because as you
pointed out, many of those factors absolutely do affect your ability to excel in school. If we want our children to excel, we need to make sure that they have the cognitive space to actually focus on learning. We don't want them to be worried about am I safe? Do I have a
place to eat? Am I going to be subject to racial discrimination? Um, and so all of the programs that we have to ensure that our students are receiving the supports that they need and also any anything that we can do to make sure that those families are receiving the support that they need to create those
conditions that are kind of >> I I my time is expired. I yel back. >> I'll now recognize myself for five minutes. Um, I first want to address the the point that was just raised. uh this idea that we can't expect students in this country to achieve at the same
levels as other countries because of things like healthcare access and poverty rates. I just want to say that nothing could be more contrary to the principles of this committee. We believe that every child deserves access to a great education. We believe that students of all backgrounds have the
capacity to succeed and we reject the systematic lowering of expectations that has condemned far too many kids in this country to a subpar education. What equity really ought to mean is not lowering expectations for everyone. What
it should mean is giving every child the access to an education that students at Success Academy have. For example, in New York, a school that has much higher poverty rates than surrounding school districts, but that actually is the top performing charter network or school district in the entire state of New York
out of hundreds of districts. That's what equity truly means. And secondly, I reject the notion that the United States should just settle for not having the best schools anywhere in the world or that we can't have that until we solve other problems. I believe that US
schools should be the best that exist anywhere. I think it's a travesty that is not the case now. But I think that we can change that if we return to educational excellence and high expectations as our guiding principles. Um uh a question for uh Ms. uh Chin. Uh
thank you very much for your testimony. As we've uh discussed in my state, California, we've seen some of the worst of these policies. uh for example in San Francisco uh they said no one gets access to 8th grade algebra uh the point was raised that you know everyone should
have access to these uh sort of programs well in San Francisco they said no one should have access to them uh and now we see this playing out in for example uh UC San Diego which is a very good school uh has seen the rate of student number of students who require remedial math we
can't even do middle school math grow to one out of every eight students so can you tell us a little bit more about sort of the downstream consequences of these sort of policies. >> I agree with you completely here. This is divining defining merit downwards.
Once you say that you're going to use equity to make access, what will happen is that you have to lower the standards for everybody. And that impacts everybody in this room. Okay? It's not just those students who get in who should not be able to do that. That
means that you will not provide all of these skills, these resources and subjects that should be covered very early. That hurts everybody, not just those students who can't take it, but the students who should be taking it and all of us who should be benefiting from it.
>> That's right. And Miss Turn, thank you as well for your testimony. You know, in California, they've attacked uh high performing charter schools again and again. And uh when I was in the legislature during one of these rounds of attacks, they tried to limit the number of charters. Several local chapters of the NC NAACP actually
opposed what uh these proposals were trying to do and came out in support of charters. So uh would you agree that attacks on high performing charter networks like uh Kip Kip or uh Success Academy work against the interests of equity?
>> What's really important from our standpoint is ensuring that all students have equal access to a highquality education. But the question about attacks on high performing charters working against the interest of equity, would you agree? >> LDF doesn't have a position on charter
schools, but we do have a position on making sure that all students, to the extent that charter schools are going to be provided, we want to make sure that all students have equal access to them. Um, and certainly we want to make sure that we're not divesting from traditional public schools in the process since 90% of our students attend
school there. Thank you. Um Mr. uh Buck, uh we've seen that actually, you know, some of these policies have started to be pulled back. In San Francisco, for example, uh they overwhelmingly uh rejected after a decade of this failed experiments denying eighth grade math. Uh in many uh colleges that stopped
using standardized tests, they've now reinstituted uh the standardized test. So, do you think that maybe the pendulum is starting to swing back towards sanity here and there's an opportunity uh to return to a paradigm of excellence? I certainly hope that the pendulum is
swinging back to a place of sanity. I think a lot of people were tricked up by kind of uh nice sounding rhetoric about equity, but they're starting to see the consequences of these policies. You can
say what you you know what you're actually trying to do. we're going to advance equity when the results are, as you said, just more students taking remedial math in college, um standardized test scores going down, achievement gaps widening. Um it it doesn't really matter what your rhetoric
is when those are the uh results in reality. >> Thank you very much. Uh I now recognize uh Representative Adams for five minutes or sorry, Representative Lee for five minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I just want to start by making sure that we're all
on the same page because I hear a lot about what equity is or isn't. So, if each uh witness could just answer the following questions with just a yes or no. The first one is the Individuals with Disability Education Act an equity policy. Mr. Runo, >> no.
>> Miss uh Turnis Young? >> Yes. >> Miss Chin? >> No. >> Mr. Buck? >> Nope. >> How about Title N? Is that an equity policy? Same order? No. >> Yes. >> No. >> No.
>> Uh, is the ruling from Brown versus Board of Education to desegregate schools an equity policy? >> No. >> Yes. >> No. >> No. >> So, thank you so much for that. uh Republicans holding a hearing titled how
equity policies harm students and uh witnesses I don't know if if you all will be able to identify what an actual equity policy is but it lets us know exactly where they stand. You either believe that every child in this country deserves access to education or you don't. But the idea that it's harmful to
give people a level playing field within systems that were directly created to disadvantage them isn't just absurd. It is perpetuating the very racist systems that conservatives pretend never existed in the first place. Our country doesn't
just have an explicit, you know, KKK racism problem. We have institutionalized systemic racism. We need equity policies because we have disparities and gaps that were created by policy decisions. Black children were
not denied access to schools because they lacked intelligence or merit. They were denied because they were black and there were systems created around that that uh continued to bolster that segregation, redlinining, urban renewal, the GI bill. These are all government
policies implemented to advantage one community to the disadvantage of another. The government resp then bears responsibility for remedying the harm that it created. That's what equity is. So instead of saying that we're lowering
expectations by saying that hey if a child is hungry they probably won't perform well. If a child has uh unstable housing that they might not perform. If a child can't access a doctor they might not perform well. That's not lowering expectations. That's raising the expectations for a government that is
the wealthiest in the in the world and and assuming that it can and should do better for all of its citizens. Um, so I just want to say the Department of Education is using it increasingly limited capacity to issue guidance that would revoke federal funding from schools over equity, diversity, inclusion, and accessibility. Miss
Turnis Young, the the LDF sued the department over the guidance uh this guidance on behalf of the NAACP. What was the outcome of that lawsuit? >> We prevailed. >> And despite so to be clear, uh it was vacated. It was unconstitutionally vague. Right. Despite this important
win, um, is conservatives crusade against equity still harming students? >> It is. Unfortunately, the threat to revoke federal funding has a vast chelling effect on educators and um, you know, school leaders across the country.
Um, so school leaders would like to hire additional teachers to serve their students, but they don't know whether the funding is going to disappear or vanish, and they're going to have to lay off that person two weeks later. Um the uncertainty has been a real problem. Um
the Dear Collie letter, for example, came out in February of 2025. Um that's Black History Month. Many Black History Month programs were cancelled. Uh reading programs were cancelled. Um talks by physicians were cancelled um ostensibly because the
position was black. Um coursework in various areas was canled. Um and unfortunately, not all of those policies and practices have been reinstated. And so unfortunately our students are missing out. >> Thank you. Um I just want to say that they're using the same playbook that they've used for for decades. They're dismantling Department of Ed, using the
same states rights uh argument by uh used by the masses resistance to desegregation. Very quickly in your testimony, you talked about how far we are still from realizing the promise of Brown and how this administration is actually moving away. What are the most important steps we can take to ensure that black, brown, and other marginalized students have equitable
access to education in this country? >> So first of all, equity and excellence go hand in hand, right? So desegregating our schools actually led to opportunity gaps closing in such a way where we saw students achieving excellence and we've retreated from that. So we can do there
are many things that Congress can do, right? Congress can invest in um programs that incentivize disegregation. They can invest in the magnet school assistance program. They can invest in the equity assistance centers program. and they can use their influence to
ensure that our federal agencies are doing what they can to ensure that school districts are curing those constitutional violations and remedying the vestages of the jury segregation to the extent possible so all of our students can enjoy an equal opportunity to get an education. >> Thank you so much. I yield back. >> Representative Ruie of Ohio is
recognized. >> Well, thank you, Chairman. Mr. Renco equitable grading policies create wasted potential when expectations are lowered in the name of fairness. All students realize that excellence is no longer
required in schools. We already see this effect of these ideas with absurd policies like that are happening right now in Georgia Tech. Their grading guidelines say that even cheating should not affect a student's letter grade.
Meanwhile, in Ohio, we take the opposite approach. Our state law requires that public school districts implement a student acceleration policy for advanced learners, not take these away from them. So, Mr. Ronco, I guess the question at
hand is a two-part question. With everything of we saying today in mind, are we wasting potential with these equitable grading policies? And also, are we setting all our students, not just some of them, all of them up for failure in the future? Thank you for the question. What we've
heard from parents on this issue is that equitable grading practices are lower lowering standards across the board. So I'll give you a couple of examples. If uh a student gets to retake a test maybe once twice um for equitable purposes,
why would a student study for the test for the first time? If a high achieving student doesn't have to go to class or they don't have to hand in their homework, but they could just ace the test at the end of the course, why wouldn't they just do that? And so these are the concerns our parents have. And
not setting good habits in school is not going to set them up uh for success in life. Don't you think that the challenges of academics and the different projects that you have and trying to beat your other classmates will elevate all boats
of every kind of imagination. >> That's exactly right. And there's a lot of argument that gifted and talented programs advanced coursework um have some adverse effects of other students. That's completely untrue. And to your point, in some instances, you would
expect that these um students, the lower performing students would actually benefit from these because the the teaching can be uh geared towards their academic abilities. >> Well, thank you for your time. Uh with that, I yield my time back to the chair. >> Representative Adams is recognized
>> for five minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank the witnesses for being here. Mr. Turn. Young, when we talk about equity today, some try to frame it as something new or controversial. But the truth is, this country has always had identity based policies, just not always ones that
expanded opportunity. Before Brown versus the Board of Education, we had laws and systems that deliberately separated students, underfunded schools, and limited access based on race, income, and zip code. And while Brown made a clear made it clear that separate
is not equal, we know that more than 70 years later, we're still dealing with the consequences of those decisions. We see it in how schools are funded. We see it in access to experienced teachers. We see it in which students are more likely to to have advanced coursework and which
students are left out. Mr. Turners Young, from your work as a civil rights attorney, can you briefly help us understand how equity f focused policies today are part of fulfilling the promise of Brown? >> Absolutely. Um,
so I'll talk a little bit about the work that our equity assistance centers do. These are centers that were funded in order to help our schools disegregate, in order to help our schools um comply with federal anti-discrimination laws.
Um, as I'm sure all of you know, um the racially discriminatory administration of discipline um is negatively correlated with student achievement, right? And so, you know, if you take a child out of that instructional space um they're not getting their lesson. um
that is not positively correlated with academic success. Um so those equity assistance centers have actually worked with schools to ensure that their disciplinary policies are being enforced consistently to ensure that it's not being enforced um arbitrarily and to
ensure that they are not removing students from classrooms unnecessarily. And that actually is something that has yielded results. We've seen schools that have uh had their discipline rates uh greatly improve and those students are better able to take in those lessons and achieve.
>> Okay, I want to move on. Uh so we can't we can't talk about academic achievement without talking about what students are carrying with them into the classroom. Right now we're facing a real mental health crisis among young people. Students are dealing with stress, anxiety, and pressure from from every
direction. academics, social expectations, family responsibilities. And we know this matters because when a student's struggling emotionally, it directly impacts their ability to focus, to learn, and to stay engaged in school. And research shows that that mental
health is not separate from academic success. It is foundational to it. That's why Congress took action through the bipartisan safer communities act to invest in school-based mental health supports because we understand that that schools are often the first place
students can access help. But but at the same time, we've seen actions from this administration that have created instability, cuts to Medicaid that schools rely on for services, and the sudden cancellation of mental health grants that schools were depending on
only to reverse course after public pressure. And that kind of uncertainty does not just affect systems, it affects students in real time. So, Miss Turners Young, can you speak uh briefly to the role that federal investments play in supporting student mental health in
schools and what happens to students, especially those in underserved communities, when those supports are weakened, delayed or taken away altogether? >> Thank you for that question. Um, what comes to mind for me is actually a rural
SC school district um that hired several school mental health providers in the wake of federal funding allowing for those positions to be filled and unfortunately uh re relatively recently that funding was cut and so they had to
let those professionals go. Um the school administrators there um talked about how important it was that the students had access to those resources. Um and the students, you know, were able to become more available to academic
learning because some of the other concerns in their lives were being addressed, right? The students um were able to work through some things and be available to, you know, excel in math, English, all of the things. So, so, so let me ask you based on your work and the research in this space, how should
we be thinking about the real barriers to academic excellence in this country and what does it look like to expand opportunity in a way that that maintains rigor but ensures that talent the and potential not background determine who gets access to it? Got four seconds.
>> Absolutely. It means funding initiatives that can support our students. >> Thank you very much. I yield back. Representative Harris of North Carolina is recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all of the witnesses for your testimony. I've certainly enjoyed reading the testimonies and apologize
for being in and out between committee hearings this morning. Um, the goal of our education system should be to provide students with a well-rounded education that focuses on core academic subjects, helps them develop their talents, and prepares them for the
future. I've had the privilege of holding a front row seat watching my wife and daughter, both teachers who have tirelessly work each year, day in and day out, to help students succeed. Unfortunately, across the country, we've seen programs that were created to help
students succeed be reduced or even completely eliminated. An example of one of these programs is the gifted and talented program that provides students that need an additional e academic challenge with advanced coursework geared toward keeping them engaged in
school and helping them grow academically. Despite several studies showing the positive benefits of accelerated programs, including one study that examined about a hundred years of research on acceleration's impact on K through2 academic achievement and found that acceleration
appeared to have a positive, moderate, and statistically significant impact on students academic achievement. There are critics, however, that argue the opposite of these findings. Mr. Ranco, you mentioned that gifted programs work
well for students who are admitted, but many critics think that gifted programs make everyone else worse off. What would you say to those concerns? Does the existence of gifted programs hurt low performing students? >> To my knowledge, there's no evidence
that supports that academic programs for high learners um had adverse effects on other learners. Um, as I mentioned earlier, in some cases it might benefit low performing students because the instruction can be tailored then to their academic ability.
Well, when you look at gifted education, it becomes increasingly apparent that while over 37 states set aside education funding for programming for gifted and talented students, including North Carolina, from which I come, the implementation of this funding and how
it is used has varied quite significantly. In fact, a 2019 survey of over 2,000 schools found that most gifted and talented programs focus on activities, projects, and games rather than advanced instruction. Mr. Buck, I want to come to you. I've long believed
in the importance of gifted education, and every single student should have the opportunity for the best education possible. At the same time, I'm sure we can all agree that there are ways that gifted programs can be implemented more effectively so they work better for
students. What advice, Mr. Buck, would you give to a state and local leader who wants to make sure their gifted program uphold academic excellence and are open to all students with the necessary academic skills. >> Thank you for the opportunity to talk
about some positive policies. I think there are three things to keep in mind. The first one is to expand opportunities. um if we don't if we think not enough students are getting into these programs, the the best course isn't just to shut them all
down, but to expand the opportunity to the the number of seats so more students can have access to them. Improve screening um um to make sure we are getting an accurate measure of what students know and don't know and who should be in them. Um and then the third one is to make these programs as robust
as possible. like you said, most schools it's just an additional activity, um, some set aside time, maybe a challenge problem that they go home with at the end of the night instead of separate coursework, accelerated classes, something a little more robust that really challenges these students in a
meaningful way. Thank you, sir. Another practice that's centered education is equitable grading. We've talked about instead of assigning grades based on the completion and quality of a student's work, equitable grading demands that grading be oriented towards eliminating bias and promoting equity in society.
What many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle argue is equitable grading practices are required to eliminate historical racial discrimination. But despite what many say it was set out to do, equitable grading has lowered the standards. Mr.
Mr. Buck, you mentioned that many schools have adopted equitable grading policies. The theory seems to be that teachers shouldn't give students zeros for work they never did. Allow unlimited test retakes in the name of equity. That strikes me as absurd. Um, if anything,
lowered expectations is the worst thing we could do for marginalized students. Do you think giving students credit for work they never did is the best way to fight racism, Mr. Buck? >> Uh, no, I do not. In fact, it seems a particularly perverse way to try and fight racism. That is to not expect
minority students to meet basically any standard. Um, so I the the again policy fall like result from that is obviously just to raise standards back up um to hold everyone to high expectations. >> Thank you, sir. And thank you to the
witnesses and Mr. Chairman, I yield back. >> Representative Grahava of Arizona is recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. chairman and thank you to all the witnesses for being here. Um, today we're here to discuss academic excellence, but we cannot have a serious
conversation about excellence while ignoring the systemic funding disparities that force students in my district and all across the country to make do with less. The narrative that equity levels down standards is not only unsupported by research, but it actively
harms millions of students, particularly those in brown, black, rural, and indigenous communities who rely on federal civil rights protections to ensure that their zip code does not determine their destiny. If we continue
to gut the Department of Education and roll back the lifelines designed to protect students, we aren't cutting red tape. We are cutting the potential of our next generation. Um, Miss Turnage Young, I'd like to start with you on this point. Proposals to dismantle or
significantly scale back the Department of Education raised serious concerns about how states and districts, especially those already underresourced would maintain civil rights protection, stable funding, and academic standards. We are already seeing early disruption
when federal education functions are shifted. For example, in oversight of adult education under WEOA title 2 begins to move from the Department of Education to the Department of Labor. States are forc are facing confusing if confusing and gaps in coordination. More
than 60 million adults nationwide lack basic liter literacy skills from populations often left behind by traditional systems. What harm do you see for students and adult learners for long-term educational quality, equity, and economic mobility if the department
continues to be gutted? If we're offloading functions that are the responsibility of the US Department of Education onto other federal agencies that don't have the staffing, the resources, the expertise, the institutional memory to really excel in
that task, uh, our citizens are going to be harmed. Our, you know, our learners are going to be harmed, and that's not something that we should be doing, >> right? Um, staffing reductions and delays at the department's office of federal student aid are already slowing program approvals and leaving
institutions without clear guidance. Colleges are being asked to implement major policy changes while taking on greater compliance risk. They also face new accountability measures tied to outcomes that may not reflect transfer and access focused programs, potentially
limiting access for underrepresented students. Uh, Miss Turner Jung, how do you see these changes affecting student access and ability of community colleges or universities to serve them effectively? >> Thank you for that question. Unfortunately, many of our colleges and
universities don't have um the luxury of having outside counsel or even sometimes inside counsel. And so when you do have the federal government advancing certain directives that might not be altogether clear, what we're experiencing is a real chilling effect. um educators not really
knowing which way can I go that's not going to subject my educational institution to liability um that could shut us down. Um and so instead of having programs that benefit our students, sometimes those programs are getting cancelled because it's just unclear whether those programs would
open the schools up to liability. Mhm. And and some of the things that I've heard um some rhetoric today, culturally responsive pedagogy is critical, I think, in ensuring that teachers and students are able to access curriculum that is relevant. Um universal
screenings and when I was on a school board for 20 years, we started instituting those. And your data totally checks out on the local level. We saw tremendous increase in students from underrepresented groups that were accessing these kinds of classes and
magnet schools are also critical in my district. So when we talk about some of the things that I've heard on the other side and some of your colleagues there um on the witness you know panel saying that you know this is um victimization this sort of policy and that it's not
victimization. these programs are advocacy and access to fight for educational outcomes. That's what's baffling to me is some of the statements that I hear um where you know this insinuates that project-based learning is not effective. It is and it makes a
difference for every student. All three of my children are in public schools and all have had the opportunity to access these programs because of these types of screenings. Um, and finally, Miss Turner Jung, staffing reductions affect key offices within the Department of Education and their growing concerns
about federal government's ability to consistently enforce civil rights protections. What happens when that enforcement capacity is weakened? >> Our families cannot look to the federal government for assistance with civil rights violations and sometimes there is nowhere to go.
>> Absolutely. Thank you so much for your time. I yield back. >> Representative Mesner of Indiana is recognized. Thank you, Mr. chairman and thank you for our witnesses for being here today. Uh Miss Chin, in your written testimony, you mentioned the increased demand for the developed uh STEM workforce and the importance of a
STEM K through2 pipeline for the America for American innovation. As an engineer, as an engineer myself, I understand how important it is to start developing these building blocks early in the child's education through rigorous math and science curricula. Can you explain how the underdeveloped STEM workforce
will directly impact America as a global leader in innovation? If we don't have the kinds of students now learning the skills that need years to build, we will not have the workforce that can be in any of the technological fields that
keep us at the leading edge of innovation. And if we don't have that, there's not much that we can do. We can become a grain producer. We can become a resource provider but that is not what keeps countries and civilizations
growing and strong. >> Thank you. Uh how do you expect the US national security to be affected if we can't keep up with our adversaries overseas? That will be an ex great danger very early because if you have to you if you don't have the people here to
be able to do it you have to have either outsource are we going to outsource all of our tech to India are we going to rely on China to give us the kind of technology that we need those are mistakes for this country we have to
develop them internally >> thank you Mr. Buck, you mentioned in your testimony how competition from charter schools actually challenges local public schools to improve their performance. Indiana is no stranger to school choice and a strong and strong charter programs. In fact, according to
US News in my district is home to the number two ranked public high school in the nation, Signature School, which is a charter school. Uh Mr. Buck, can you explain on how having competitive schools such as charters improves the public the entire public education system?
Yes. So I mentioned a large and ever growing body of research literature that's called competitive effects which is essentially that the presence of a charter school makes all of the other surrounding traditional public schools the students there perform better as
well. Why is that? Two reasons. One the charter schools stands out as kind of an exemplar. They can try new practices and then traditional public schools can follow along see what succeeds and what fails and replicate what works. The other thing is simply competition. Um they suddenly they they don't have a
guarantee of that bottom line. So they have to up their game to do better and the students in the traditional public schools benefit from that competition. >> Okay. Thank you. Um since I joined this committee last year, we have focused on the importance of developing a workforce that meets the needs of our economy. A
large part of developing a strong workforce is challenging students academically and socially to prepare them for life outside of the classroom. Mr. Runo, how does an AC how does accurate grading improve students socially and academically? >> Yeah, so accurate grading so the grading
is a measurement for the question of is my child learning? And so it's important that we answer that question truthfully uh with some equity initiatives. They're trying to address the uncomfortable situation of telling a a parent, no, your child is not learning.
But the only way we can get honest assessment if this child is learning and is ready to enter the next phase of life after K12 education um is if we answer that question honestly and put them in a plan uh to address any gaps if needed. >> Thank you. If these students aren't
learning these lessons in their K- through2 classroom, how does this impact their college and career readiness? There was a really shocking article that came out last year from the New York Post. Um, and it said the title was the shocking rise of Gen Z college freshmen
who can't even do basic math. Um, so I imagine the challenge is particularly for parents, you know, if you're paying thousands or tens of thousand dollars to pay for a math class that your child should have taken in K12. Um, that just reduces the return on investment for families.
>> Thank you. And how does blocking student access to algebra in eighth grade inhibit their ability to to complete their their college uh level math before they're out of high school, >> right? So, we're seeing colleges and colleges and universities increasingly
offering remedial math um which is alarming in and of itself, but just the reversal of that policy by San Francisco Unified shows what a bad decision it was in the first place. >> Thank you. I yield back my time. Representative Manion of New York is recognized.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the witnesses for participating today. I think it's important to clarify that when we're talking about equity in education, we're talking about raising the bar when it comes to education,
never lowering the bar. contrary to what we're hearing uh at times today. What some of my colleagues on uh our side of the day have mentioned is that as we're trying to make sure that
there's opportunity for everyone, we must acknowledge what has happened in the past. the impact of slavery, of Jim Crow, of segregation, of education segregation, of redlinining, and all of those things have led to impoverished
communities disproportionately black and brown impoverished communities. And as a result, what we see, the one direct correlation that can almost always be drawn is that when we see lower reading levels or lower graduation rates, what
is directly proportional to that are high rates of poverty. And that exists whether it is an urban setting or a rural setting. So, um, I'm going to tell you a quick story before I get back to some of my remarks
here, which is what we've already heard, uh, related to cuts in funding. So, in the last Congress with a Republican majority, appropriated dollars went to a public university to expand their uh
number of students and eventually practitioners as school counselors, social workers, school psychologists to help with mental health issues in our schools. That funding was approved and appropriated. uh the power of the purse
falls within Congress, but this administration came in and cut that funding to the tune of $3.8 million when that program was designed to expand so that children dealing with trauma can learn. As we've discussed already in
this hearing, the word black or Latino or brown or indigenous was not in that grant request. One word was that caused it to be cut. poverty, the one indicator that's directly proportional to lower
earning outcomes, learning outcomes. And I want to level set on the competition that exists with charter schools. It is not a fair competition. Charter schools, corporate charter schools have lower rates of students enrolled with
disabilities, 504 plans and IEPs, lower rates of English language learners. If there are students that are subjected to disciplinary actions, they can leave the charter system and go back to the traditional public system. They also can
hold reserve funds unlike public schools to make sure that they have graduated programs and gifted and learning programs. So it is not a fair fight including the collocation of charter schools within traditional public schools. All of those things skew the
numbers dramatically as do standardized tests that have been found to be biased against certain communities. So, we can talk about excellence and we can talk about raising the bar, but if we throw the letters D, E, at things and think
that that is going to uh raise the bar for everyone, it's lowering the bar when we attack those systems that are specifically designed. And again, dollars that were appropriated by a previous Congress, a Republican Congress
that acknowledged that poverty uh and the trauma that's caused by poverty is impactful on our educational institutions and because of the institutional uh dynamic that has existed in this country for a very long time time
disproportionately harmful towards African-Americans and Latinos. So I thank you for listening to my comments here. But sometimes we get away from the reality of what has existed in this country. My quick
question to Miss Turnage Young is that based on your work at LDF and your perspective as a civil rights litigator, how do you see the shifts in federal attention towards culture war debates, how does that affect our ability to confront the real structural barriers
that exist in educational opportunities? To the extent that we're talking about imagined problems, we are being distracted from the actual problems and challenges that we should be working together to overcome.
I I will note for example um I I'm I'm happy to see um so much attent so much you know attention being paid to hey we should have equal opportunity in our schools. I think I've heard all of the witnesses talk about equal opportunity. That's fantastic. Um, but there are
actual problems we should be talking about. For example, only 50% of our schools in this country offer calculus. Only 38% of schools that have a majority black or Latinx population offer calculus. It might be no surprise that
many, given that uneven access, many of our students are not able to take calculus by the time they graduate from high school. What can we do? Representative Miller of Illinois is recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our schools
should be places where our children can reach their full god-given potential. Far too many schools now have equity policies that rob students of these opportunities. Democrat-led cities and states have launched a direct attack on accelerated
learning, labeling them as racist and exclusive. Despite their widespread success, cities like New York, Seattle, and San Francisco have dis discontinued accelerated learning programs in their schools.
Additionally, New York City Mayor Zoron Mandami, former mayor Bill Delasio have actively gone after high-performing charter schools, accusing them of siphoning resources away from public schools. Furthermore, cities like
Portland and San Diego have encouraged students have encouraged teachers to ignore unsubmitted assignments and offer unlimited re retakes. I don't know how that is keeping the standard high or
promoting academic rigor. Parents want more gifted learning choices for their children, but DEI policies are harming the very kids they were intended to help. families that it can afford to will send
their children to private schools, including Democrat representatives, and there is a significant number of them today and in the past that have um advocated against school choice, but yet they send their own children to private
schools. Disadvantaged children are stuck in a failing system. And I will say that the most racist thing going on in our country is forcing inner city disadvantaged black and brown children to have to stay in failing schools. Schools that have been failing for
decades. Academics should be based solely on merit and we must return to those standards. And I do want to make another comment about something Miss Young said. She said, "Talent is everywhere, opportunity is not." And I
would like to say it is because Democrats and teachers unions advocate not for the student but for the system, the failing system and eliminating accelerated learning programs will make
the system more of a failure. So my question for Mr. Runco, education is a state and local issue, but Congress has control of federal funding. What are some ways that Congress can address equity policies and stop Democrat mayors
from discriminating against charter schools? Thank you for the question. Um, I think a couple ways come to mind. One, when an equity policy uh goes into the realm of being uh discriminatory, uh the Department of Education can investigate and uh withhold funds if needed. Uh, for
example, my organization uh recently uh filed a complaint against Los Angeles Unified, which the Department of Education is investigating over their uh black student achievement plan uh which is excluding students based on race. Another way is uh to prioritize uh
charter school program funds for uh cities that are actually prioritizing charter schools. I'd say if a a mayor of a city is anti-charter school, um it would it would make sense uh maybe not to prioritize them for hamstringing charter schools and then funding them for the hamstringing.
>> Thank you. My next question is to Ms. Chin. In your written testimony, you mentioned how many other countries are outperforming the United States academically. What policies foster this and how can the US emulate them? How they achieve it is by focus on
academics. First of all, you don't have equity policies. You don't have equity grading. You have assessments. You have high standards. You have that kind of necessity not to have low expectations. This bigotry of low expectations is
extremely extremely racist. >> When we just assume that certain people cannot perform. No, that's not what we're trying to do. We're trying to say that to be competitive we have to have these qualities to be very very careful
about the academics first. What are schools about and then later you do have in all of these countries that succeed a focus on the students by their abilities and their levels because you cannot teach properly. This is a burden
on all teachers to teach properly for each cohort for the peers to excel. >> And I would like to add that we should not be wasting time, precious classroom time, hypersexualizing our children. And with that, I will yield back.
>> Representative Hayes of Connecticut is recognized. >> Thank you. Since the start of this administration, we've seen efforts to dismantle the Department of Education. Just last March, President Trump signed
an executive order directing the Secretary to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education. I can tell you that most classroom teachers don't think about the day-to-day operations of the Department of Education. They shouldn't have to because things like
civil rights protections, things like making sure schools are well resourced, things like making sure that we are infusing the teacher pipeline with highly qualified educators are things that should happen outside of the classroom so that a teacher can just
close their door and teach. I know this because I am a teacher. I also know that much of what we're hearing and talking about here today is not how it works in the classroom. You talk about Miss Chen
um countries around the world that are outperforming our US education system. Those countries are also prioritizing highquality teacher training, prioritizing the holistic child. Many of those countries have um universal health
care systems so that families are not worrying about those things. They have highquality child care programs so that uh parents are home with their children at the beginning of their life uh to begin to foster some of those things. So we're not comparing apples to apples
here. Um there are lots of things that um we're talking about here that just really isn't how it works. Mr. Runo, you talked about being honest about assessments. I can tell you that a standardized test is not the only way to
assess a child. There were many students in my classroom where where it appeared that they didn't get it based on what was on the paper, but then when you had a conversation and pulled it out of them, you understood no, they understand the concept. is this whole testing strategy that does not work for them. I
come from the state of Connecticut where we have some of the largest equity gaps in education, some of the highest performing boarding schools in the world and some of the lowest performing community schools in the country. And many of those places are 5 miles apart and they're resourced differently. The
people who are standing in front of those kids are different. The the environments they come from is different. And that's not victimization. And that's just a snapshot of what we're dealing with and what it looks like. One of the first things you learn in teacher preparation is when you're writing an
IEP, when you're writing a a lesson plan, it is an individualized assessment. You can't deal with students individually without considering their race, their demographics, their community, their all of those things.
All of those things are part of the way we instruct the whole child. So, it is I mean this this hearing and many hearings like it are just remarkable because I refuse to be lectured by people who are draining the resources to keep our kids
competitive. Um, Miss Turnage Young, my question is for you. What do you see as potential harms to students and broader threats to educational quality and equity if the department is dismantled the Department of Education? and what safeguards can Congress begin to put in place for those
things? >> So, from my years of work as an attorney, I've encountered many school districts where we have a recurring problem. um the school district is not placing black and Latinx students who score highly in math, for example, in
advanced math courses or, you know, as in the case of Philadelphia, um a fourth of the black and Latinx students who obtained the minimum score required to qualify for the selective admissions schools there were not admitted. they
were admitting students of other races who did not get the required score and it was based on principal discretion. Um that's the sort of thing we see again and again and again. Um we support all students having an equal opportunity to access advanced academic programs and
that's something that the US Department of Education can help with um because of course it is there to uphold our civil rights laws. >> Well, that's what I was going to say. uh the the department can address things like educator shortage or outdated facilities or inconsistent access to
advanced coursework. Those are the things that we can address to deal with this this uh issue. A lot of times for many of the courses, finding an educator that is qualified to teach it, you know, having someone who is prepared um for to
meet those needs of students with disabilities or facilities challenges or all of those things. Those are the things that the department can be working on to level this playing field of access. So these attacks on DEI really does not understand what education is supposed to do. It is
supposed to educate the individual and you can't do that without first acknowledging who our students are. With that, I yield back. >> Representative Owens of Utah's recognized. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. This uh for convenience very very important um
hearing on education malpractice. Uh equitable grading policies will not teach our children how to succeed or how to push through adversity. Instead, they're teaching them it's okay to miss deadlines or to turn assignments in late. Some of these grading policies will give students credit when they fail
to submit their work. As a common sense adult, we all know this is wrong and not based on reality. These students will grow up without discipline to pay their bills on time. They will think work deadlines are flexible. They will set themselves up to failure believing that in the real world they will be rewarded
by laziness, the lack of commitment and discipline. Su success will come only to our children when we teach them to dream big to meet high expectations. But this only comes when those that are teaching them have high expectations for them. When we instead judge their potential
based on the background of color, this is nothing more than age-old racism. It's actually the most devious type of racism because it's not the obvious in-your-face hate. It's instead soft bigotry of low expectations with a big smile and a big hug. I grew up in the
60s seeing both hard and soft bigotry of low expectations at the time from white Americans. A generation later later, I saw this full circle as my oldest daughter went through a phase of being called names because she exceeded the low expectations of her black schoolmates. Because she worked hard,
got good grades, respected herself and others, was articulate. She was accused of trying to be white. The real success of hatefilled racism is when the targeted minority communities finally accept failure as the truth. when accepts the merit is not only not believable but indeed an insult. The
soft bigotry of low expectations runs rampant in the Democrat-run cities and states as they proactively get rid of accelerated and gifted programs for high achieving minority students. They simultaneously lower the standards for other hardworking students. This is a standard that most Americans would never
believe is a goal of an institution of education to accept equity of ignorance. It is to accept the bar of of equity that's so low that anyone who exhibits any potential of int intellectual intelligence feels that they're an embarrassment to the race. No young
black child desiring to be accepted wants their friends thinking he's willing to insult his race by trying to act white. This effort by Democrats to lower intellectual expectations minorities is working throughout this country as planned. in third in in Baltimore 13 high schools
have zero proficiency in math from their students. Democratic politician and public school leaders think this is normal. In California in 2017, 75% of black boys could not read and write at grade level. But black and white bigots
feel this is normal. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about this. Why merit and education matters. I think at the end of the day, if we treat our kids the way we'd like us to be treated with high expectations, uh, dreaming big and not
tell them that we can, I think, uh, we'll get a lot further with how we're succeeding with our educational system. Miss Chen, your testimony stated that lowering standards to u equalize outcomes hurts all students, but struggling and uh, outcomes hurt all students, both struggling and advanced
students. I completely agree. I think it's obvious how lowered standards harm advanced students. But why uh but can we talk about why the lowering standards are so harmful for struggling students? >> If you lower the standards, the kids will work even at a lower pace. We know
that. We know that if you have high standards, they have to try to meet them. If they fail, that's one thing. If you lower, they will try even less. And we've heard that several times. This is rational. This is human behavior. If you say that you could get away with doing
less, most kids will do less. That is rational. Unless we believe our kids are not rational. We're not trying for that, right? So, we have to stay the course, have high expectations of our kids, have academic quality
studies so that they don't divert themselves into equity studies that other countries are not doing. I should also mention that for all the other countries it is not true that they have all of those other aspects of total health care
etc etc so that they could achieve it was usually the reverse in fact >> okay thank you Mr. Ranco, I'm troubled uh that so many schools have embraced equity policies. The immediate impact is is obvious. Students are going to be held less accountable, learn less, and
struggle to succeed academically. Academically, uh what do you think the long-term effects of this might be? >> Yeah, I think workforce readiness comes to mind. If we're not preparing our students to enter the workforce, um then employers can't find uh workers for the
jobs and um not having a great workforce is bad for America. >> Thank you so much, Mr. Chair back. >> The ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Scott, is recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. M. Young, you mentioned the um results
um where fewer African-Americans proportionately were in a advanced course um because they were screened out by teachers and principles. Is it unusual for blacks to represent a smaller
portion of gifted and talented courses than their than those who would actually qualify? >> Unfortunately, black students are often underidentified for advanced academic programs and for gifted and talented
programs for known correctable reasons. I would implore this committee to try to work to address that issue. It's a long-standing one. >> Thank you. And what happened at Thomas Jefferson High School? >> Um, so if you're referring to the Thomas
Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Fairfax County, Virginia, that's a selective admissions school. It serves uh several different counties in Northern Virginia. Um, they changed their admissions policy to get rid of
the $100 application fee. They also um nixed the admissions test. They decreed that 1.5% of the eighth grade class at each eligible middle school would have a spot at the school. And they put in
place, you know, some other assessments. Um after the application fee was removed, and of course the research tells us that application fees can discourage applications because some students just can't afford them. um I think something like 1,000 additional
applicants applied. Um you ended up having an admitted class that had a much higher average GPA than previous classes. There were more girls that were admitted. Um previously only one low-income Asian-American student have been admitted. Um that next year 51
low-income Asian-American students were admitted. Um more black students were admitted, more Latinx students were admitted. Um, and so what you saw is by allowing every student a more equal chance to compete for admission, more
students felt welcome to apply and more students were identified as being able to thrive in this program. >> Thank you. We've heard a lot about merit. Can you tell us a little bit about the merit of standardized tests like SAT and other screening standardized tests?
Yes, to be clear, um, LDF certainly supports high standards. We certainly, you know, we don't oppose tests per se. What we oppose is tests being misused. Often tests are being used in ways that the test developers themselves don't advise. Um, tests are not supposed to be
used as like the one criterion that people are looking at. And certainly we want to make sure that tests have both content validity and predictive validity. Meaning that we want to make sure those tests are measuring what they claim to measure and that they are actually predicting success in the
setting that they're being used to assess. And too often our tests are not doing that. Um right. So, there is a growing body of research that shows that tests are often underpredicting the potential of black students, Latinx students, students whose um
colloquialisms that are being used in the home are different from that of the test makers. And what's happening is that the language that's being used in the test makers homes is actually getting into the test. And so differences in semantics are actually
making it so that those scores for black examinees, Latinx examinees are being artificially depressed so that those tests are not actually a good indisha of whether those students can succeed. >> Thank you. And in your testimony, you mentioned federal courts have ruled that
the n the 2025 Department of Education guidance on equity policies was unlawful. What was wrong with those policies? There were a number of uh legal infirmities in those policies. We had three different federal courts across the country that all found legal
infirmities in those policies and enjoin them ultimately those policies were vacated and we were able to negotiate a favorable settlement. Um those policies were um pronounced to be unconstitutionally vague. Um those policies were pronounced to be a violation of our administrative
procedures act. Um the real issue with the policies is that they were attacking lawful efforts to advance equal opportunity that are known to support learning in many of our students. Um and so unfortunately we had a situation where the federal government was telling
educators, hey we're going to cut your federal funding and perhaps charge you with false claims acts liability if you don't stop doing these things. And these things was vague. Um, so you did have educators who were um, you know, stopping tutoring programs, stopping
mentoring programs, stopping outreach programs, stopping services for students with disabilities, um, cutting off talks by professionals, um, cutting all Black History Month celebrations and so on and so forth. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Repres uh, Representative Molen of Guan
is repres. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bo, uh thank you also for your testimony uh today on looking at measures we can improve and reform our gifted education programs. Uh many of my constituents on
Guam, it's quite a ways way out there in the Pacific. And in fact, I just came back last night. It's 15 time zones away and and we've crossed the date line as well. We're really out there. Uh our education system uh is I think really
good. uh many of our families uh uh kids go to public schools and also private schools. Work really hard to put their kids to private schools and now we're even expanding our charter schools too. Um because where where do we go from
there for our kids? We don't have doctorates degrees for medical doctors or dentists or lawyer degrees. and to get that talent to come back home, we had to go off island, thousands of dollars, out of state tuition and just
being away from home. So, I think it's important that we really support um our our gifted and talented and promoting that education there. So, what can you say u for us that how can Congress support this uh in the states, but most importantly for our territories like
like Guam and our other territories? I understand the difficulty in kind of having some difficulty in uh homegrown perhaps education workforce, but it might encourage you to know that there's no correlation between traditional teacher prep and student outcomes. So I
think grow your own pro programs, focusing on advanced learning, um expanding choice to elite private schools, charter schools with which allow access to all that can function incredibly well. Um that's going to be the pathway to creating the workforce
that you need to staff the schools that can can train um students for whatever career that it is that they want for their future. >> Thank you for that. Uh so Guam is also part of the uh second island chain and the defense of the nation is is relying
on the second island chain. We're the hub most uh western soil of the United States in our Indopaccom area. So uh Mr. Runo and Miss Chen uh you both uh discussed in your testimonies the
importance of merit-based and value culture of academic e excellence. uh explain to me or expand upon how the federal government uh can help support our states and especially our territories to work together uh for our
educators, for our students and for our parents to give that culture of academic excellence. >> I think that the first thing that we have to do is reinforce this notion of as you say excellence. When we have
people who are ready to erode at every point and say that our students from any corner of our territories or in the mainland USA that they can not live up to the highest
potential. That is a mistake. We should also insist that we focus on STEM because STEM is highly measurable and it is highly needed for our future. The only thing I'd add is I think it's really interesting what uh the
Department of Education is doing with funding waiverss. So, if a state perhaps or um wants to uh put more money into its gifted and talented programs, potentially advance course work, I think the state could work with the Department of Education on a funding waiver uh to use their funds more flexibly.
>> Uh thank you, Pano. And I just wanted to share as a member of Congress, one of the great jobs I get to do is uh do some uh app app um well challenges for the students to put their artwork in the halls of Congress, right? And and that's
something I I enjoy uh seeing these kids who are so talented in displaying their art and having them achieve that uh to have their art displayed in Congress. Another one is our application um challenge where they make these
wonderful computer programs or uh using AI now. It's just amazing how talented uh these folks are and the most honorable I I got to say I have the job of doing is recommending folks for the militarymies. These folks are tremendous in their
grades uh their civic duties uh and their physical fitness that they had to uh work really hard to be officers in and for our service and I really applaud uh the hard work that they do and to be having that opportunity to recommend
them and see them move forward. I'm very happy that our education system is promoting uh this excellence. So I thank you very much for your statements and Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Thanks very much. I'll now recognize ranking member Bonamichi for a closing statement. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
to the witnesses um for this interesting conversation. I want to emphasize that no one is suggesting that we should not have great schools or that we should lower expectations or standards, but we should ask what can we do to expand opportunity to help all students do well
and thrive. And the majority may suggest that it's getting rid of diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. Obviously, we have pointed out re many reasons why we disagree. Also, so many issues discussed today, including grading policies. Those are decisions
and policies made by school boards, not by Congress. It's a bit confusing to hear the majority continuously say give education back to the states, but then complain when the school boards of the states do something that they don't like. And with regard to the comment
about high school students not doing well in math or needing remedial writing instruction, that's not because of DEI, maybe AI, but not DEI. Those are not the reasons why. Um, and following up on Representative Hayes, who is a national
teacher of the year, her comment on assessments and Ms. uh Turnage Young's comments about the assessment quality or lack thereof. I just want to quote uh or not quote but refer to um a education scholar Dr. Yangzo who grew up in rural
China in a went to school in a system that focused on getting good test scores. He's a critic of education focused on just getting good test scores. And he's a he says that high stakes standardized test scores do not measure and in fact offer often stifle
creativity and entrepreneurial spirit. And we need to keep that in mind when we're talking about assessments that should be used to inform instruction. Mr. Chairman, the term equity is not a partisan invention. It's grounded in a straightforward principle. The
dictionary definition is about fairness and justice and how people are treated and freedom from disparities that are based on race, gender, or background. This should not be controversial. Yet, we've seen colleagues attempt to recast this basic idea of human decency into
something that's suspect or even harmful. When did fairness become a problem? When did having a public school system in which every student has an opportunity to learn and thrive, no matter who they are or where they come from? When did that become a point of contention? The federal government
should promote educational equity so all students can succeed, not just the privileged. We should be able to agree on that. But too often access to gifted and talented programs or other advanced coursework is limited by a lack of resources, by a failure to provide
accommodations, and honestly by bias. These hurdles prevent many students from access to rigorous classes in which they very well may uh thrive and do well and excel. And again, all students, regardless of race, gender,
socioeconomic status, disability, or zip code, they all deserve the opportunity to pursue advanced coursework that's commisserate with their abilities. I remain concerned that my colleagues rhetoric represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what equity and education means. Black and brown
children and children with disabilities deserve access to advanced coursework and gifted and talented programs. Period. But again, every student deserves access to a challenging education that makes them thrive. And as I noted, contrary to the title of this hearing, excellence and equity are not
mutually exclusive. I'm disappointed that today repres represents yet another missed opportunity to address the real problems facing students and teachers. The Trump administration's relentless attacks on public education. By dismantling the Department of Education,
the Trump administration has undermined our ability to study academic trends and provide guidance and oversight. Congress should not be standing idally by while our public education system and the Department of Education itself is on the chopping block. It's time to stand up
for students needs and uplift public education instead of sabotaging sabotaging it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman, I yield back. >> Uh thank you very much to all of our witnesses. um you know equity uh properly understood is a laudable and
and necessary goal of education. I'd argue it's a cornerstone uh of our social contract. But what today's hearing has shown is that the term has been co-opted in service of an agenda that produces manifest uh inequities uh that harm the harms the very students
that it purports to help uh and that makes everyone worse off. Uh we see this in uh attacks on charter schools. uh support for charges should be overwhelming and bipartisan. And yet we heard just total falsehoods uh uttered
during this hearing in an attempt uh to discredit them. To be clear, charters are public schools that are tuitionfree, that are open to all uh where seats have to be lotteryied if they're overs subscribed, that usually are underfunded compared uh to district schools. For
example, Success Academy has become the top performing uh network of schools in New York despite getting something like 30% less uh per pupil funding. Uh and all of the factors that were raised to discredit them uh the studies that show that charters get substantially uh more
learning overall uh account for all of these. The Stanford Credo study is the gold standard. Often the methodology involves uh looking at an overs subscribed charter uh and then looking at the students who won the lottery versus those who didn't and couldn't go there and seeing their learning outcomes
uh over time. So you have like a natural controlled experiment. So our goal should be to make it so you don't have to do a lottery that there are enough seats available uh at high performing schools. That's actually what a bill that Representative Owens and I are sponsoring the highquality charter school act would do. Uh we also see this
in the effort to remove advanced learning opportunities from the public school system. And what the evidence and common sense overwhelmingly show is that when you do that, those opportunities are monopolized by those who have the means to pursue them outside of the
public education system, thereby exacerbating uh inequities. Whereas when you have an objective system for identifying the students who are well suited to those opportunities within the public education system, it produces much more equitable results in terms of
who gets access. We see this overall trend perhaps most clearly uh in my own state of California where for many years there have been efforts to deny advanced learning opportunities to not teach algebra teaching reading the wrong way attacking charter schools and other
options for families lowering expectations and eliminating accountability. And what do we see as a result? We see at UC San Diego one out of every eight students needs remedial math. We see that students from low-income families in California fare almost the worst of any in the country
on an applesto apples uh comparison. Uh we see uh the highest illiteracy rate of any state in the country. And yes, absolutely uh there are clear links between not getting a highquality education and life outcomes like poverty. California also has the highest
poverty rate of any state in the country. But it does not have to be this way. There are great examples across the United States. Whether it's charters like Success or KIPP, whether it's the amazing success story in New Orleans after Katrina, whether it's the many outstanding school districts and
district schools that exist across this country that follow the principles of high expectations, that embrace a paradigm of excellence, that cultivate the talents of all students, that give that empower families with choices, that support teachers. These are principles
that all schools and all districts across this country can adopt and uh that we'll continue to advocate for on this committee because the stakes could not be higher for millions of kids of this country as well as our country's future. There being no further business, without objection, the subcommittee
stands adjourned.