Leveling Down: How Equity Policies Undermine Excellence and Harm Students

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 K-twelve 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. Policymakers 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 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 grading, and charter schools. Let's start with gifted and talented programs. These classes are overwhelmingly popular with parents. According to a two thousand twenty-four EdChoice morning consult poll, sixty-three percent of parents said it was at least very important that their child's school offer advanced academic classes while only eight percent expressed that it was not important. There's also considerable evidence that gifted education is good for kids. As Johns Hopkins professor Jonathan Plucker summar 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, s- 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 one. Now, San Francisco eventually recourse 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 through ten 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 denies 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 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 twenty twenty three to discard traditional yardsticks 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 gained forty 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, Mister 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 baccalaureate, IB, and dual enrollment courses, they do offer extended and expanded opportunities for students. But I'll also note that engaging rigorous course work 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 for a student support in 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 this 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 accommodation. 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 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 waivers to states u- to use funding however they wish, weakening accountability measures put in place by Congress to guarantee the equitable distribution of funds. This administration has fundally fundamentally harmed the ability of Congress to improve and strengthen our public school system. And as I've have I have pointed out to this subcommittee and to the full committee, Ad nauseum, the federal government does not dictate curriculum, but it does and it should promote equity in 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 nineteen sixties. Importantly, researchers at the Institute of Education Sciences, IES, 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 cuss to IES 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 IES 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 a century, and where about ninety percent of all U. S. 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 implement implementation no child left behind led to high stakes 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 high quality 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 twelve thousand very diverse school districts, with test scores of students in countries with universal health care, 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, districts and the states the resources they need to succeed to fill the uh

Pursuant to committee rule eight C, 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 five p m fourteen days after this hearing and without objection the hearing record will remain open for fourteen 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 Mister Daniel Buck, Research Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, here in Washington DC. Our second int- uh witness is Ms. Weiwa Qin, 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 Protection Initiative at the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund in Washington DC, and our fourth witness is Mister Paul Runkow, Senior Director of K-twelve 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 count down from three minutes. However, pursuant to Committee Rule eight D and committee practice, we will not cut off your testimony until you reach the five 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 Mister Buck for your testimony.

Good morning, Mister Chairman, Ranking Member Bonamici, 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 graph with proper grammar was deconstructed by progressives. I watched as their policies ruined schools and codified into law the soft bigotry of low expectations. And I sit here today frustrated because those who champion equity advance the policies that makes schools only worse for our students. The clearest and most recent example of this trend is Mayor Mamdani's promise to el- eliminate a 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 sixty thousand dollars to the elite Bronx High School of Science. Likewise, in twenty fourteen, 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 advanced 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 in depressed achievement. Large majorities of teachers oppose it and 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, Mister Chairman, that attendance at urban charter schools results in the equivalent of forty additional days of learning per year in math, and twenty-eight 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 excellent agenda focused on high standards merit and academic rigor. Thank you again.

Thanks very much. I'll next recognize Ms. Chin for your testimony.

Uh, distinguished Chairman, Ranking Comm- Member and subcommittee members, thank you for the opportunity to testify. a friend, a school parent who's volunteered countless hours to starting a new school in New York City called Next Gen 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. Two thirds 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 were supposed to address AI, computer science, technology issues for kids of any race, 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 world-class 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 high-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 fifteen, they're still three to four years behind. These are based on TIMSS and PISA scores, assessments that are very objective. By our nation's own report card, only twenty-two percent of our twelfth graders, and these are the ones who are still in the school, are math proficient, and per- math proficiency is a very low standard. These aren't small gaps. This is system-wide 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 e- academics and inject social or political agendas into the classrooms. Merit-based programs like Gifted and Challenged 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, Stuyvesant, Bronx Science have relied on objective merit-based exam emissions. 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's specialized high schools show what merit can do. These are poor kids in most cases in these schools. Theirs graduates include fifteen Nobel Null 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 recommit to excellence, rigor, and merit. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I will next recognize Miss Turnage uh for your test- Turnage Young for your testimony.

Good morning, Chairman Kiley, Ranking Member Bonam- Nietzsche, and other distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Michelle Turnage 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, Thurgood 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 d- 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 vestiges of de jure 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 one hundred and eighty percent increase in the share of disadvantaged students who were identified as gifted, including many black and Hispanic students, low income 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 high quality 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 I funding, incentivize state and local educational agencies to implement evidence-based policies that support students, and expand grant programs that advance school desegregation, 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 cadre of teachers. Fifth, Congress should work to ensure that the U. S. 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 disaggregation cases and ending others the United States Department of Justice should fulfill its obligation to ensure that school districts that previously engaged in de jure segregation cure their long-standing constitutional violations by eliminating the vestiges of de jure segregation 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 sum, talent is everywhere, but opportunity is not. In order to achieve excellence, leverage is the full universe of talent in this country. Congress must work to eliminate entrenched barriers to equal opportunity that can unfairly disadvantage many hard-working, talented students. Thank you.

Thank you very much, and lastly I'll organize Mr. Ronco for your testimony.

Chairman Kiley, uh, Ranking Member Bonamici and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me. My name is Paul Ronco and I'm the Senior Director of K-twelve 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 one 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 the m- 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 tr- some districts, traditional forms of academic recognition have been scaled back or eliminated. Examples include eliminating the honor of valedictorian, discontinuing honor rolls 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 in 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 five-minute rule, and I will first recognize the chairman of the full committee, Mister Wahlberg of Michigan, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for having this hearing. It's uh increasingly uh at least um 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 proffers 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 nineteen eighty 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, uh, expansive education opportunities seem just to be common sense. I won't take time to define that right now. S- but thank you for the panel for being here. Mister 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. And that's not just saying cuz 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 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 gonna get gifted and talented programs, just depends what those are. And we want the positives with the 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 low income families?

Uh, I would say on the contrary that uh it that uh the ge- the disadvantaged are not doing well on this. If anything, I agree with you that we have to continue these because they help the disadvantaged.

Right.

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 gonna be able to reach all of the s- students. They benefit.

That's true equal opportunity, isn't it?

Absolutely.

Um, thank you. Um, Mr. Runko, 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 cut- cutting off these options.

There's two things that come to mind, uh, 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 Mamdani had said that he wanted to get rid of gifted and talented in kindergarten. And their poll showed that nearly half of those 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 uh I yield back.

Uh, the ranking member, representative of Bonavici of Oregon is recognized.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the witness's interesting conversation and uh certainly with the 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 w- I just wanted to - to ask a question, um, uh, Ms. 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 high quality educational opportunities. So so from your perspective as a civil rights litigator is sustained support for rural schools an equity-based initiative and how

Thank you for that question. LDF has the honor of representing many students who attend rural school districts. And so we're familiar with the 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.

Um

I wanna get to another question. I appreciate that. Um, in twenty seventeen 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, uh again, Miss Turnage-Young, Congress charged the Department of Education with implementing IDEA. Are you concerned that this administration will shift responsibility for IDEA 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 two thousand twenty-four alone, OCR, or the Office for Civil Rights of the US Department of Education, received nearly twenty-three thousand complaints overall, and thirty-seven percent 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.

Right. Appreciate that. I have another question uh uh again this it turned as young. We've heard some comparisons this morning um of Un- 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, uh, uh, they have a national system, but they also have universal health care. 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 m- would the these comparisons make sense to compare the thousands of school districts across the country with countries that have universal health care 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 the conditions that I sense.

Yeah. I, I, I, my time is expired. I yield 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 health care 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 sub-par 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 for 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 U 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 eighth 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 number of students who require remedial math we can't even do middle school math grow to one out of every eight students so could 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 defining defining merit downwards once you say that you're gonna use equity to make access what will happen is that you have to lower the the standards for everybody and that impacts everybody in this room OK, 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 r- 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. Ms. uh, Tony Jung, thank you as well for your testimony. You know, in California they've attacked uh hyper-torment 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 and the 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 a 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 equal access to a high quality education.

But the question about attacks on high performing charters working against the interests of equity, would you agree?

Uh 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 wanna make sure that we're not divesting from traditional public

Thank you. Um, Mister 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 s- now reinstituted uh the standardized tests. So do you think that maybe the pendulum is starting to swing back towards sanity here and there is an opportunity? 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 gonna advance equity, but 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 uh Adams for five minutes. I'm sorry representative Lee for five minutes.

Thank you Mister Chairman. Um I just wanna start by making sure that we're all on the same page because I hear a lot about what equity is,

No.

Miss uh Turnage Young.

Yes.

Miss Chin.

No.

Mister Buck.

Nope.

How about title nine? Is that an equity policy? Same order.

No. Yes. No. Nope.

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, uh, I don't know 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. Redlining, urban renewal, the GI Bill, these are all government policies implemented to advantage one community to the disadvantage of another, the government 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

We prevailed. And this might