    [Senate Hearing 107-675]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 107-675

                     SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF TITLE I:
                          STATE AND LOCAL PERSPECTIVES
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                        COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION,
                              LABOR, AND PENSIONS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                          ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       ON

      EXAMINING STATE AND COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVES OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
     TITLE I OF H.R. 1, TO CLOSE THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP WITH ACCOUNTABILITY,
            FLEXIBILITY, AND CHOICE, SO THAT NO CHILD IS LEFT BEHIND

                                   __________

                               SEPTEMBER 10, 2002

                                   __________

     Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
                                    Pensions

                           U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    81-758                           WASHINGTON : 2003
    ____________________________________________________________________________
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
    Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

              COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS

                   EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts, Chairman
    CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut     JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
    TOM HARKIN, Iowa                     BILL FRIST, Tennessee
    BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland        MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
    JAMES M. JEFFORDS (I), Vermont       TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
    JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico            JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
    PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota         CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
    PATTY MURRAY, Washington             PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
    JACK REED, Rhode Island              SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
    JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina         JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
    HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York     MIKE DeWINE, Ohio
               J. Michael Myers, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
                 Townsend Lange McNitt, Minority Staff Director
                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                                   STATEMENTS

                          TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2002

                                                                       Page
    Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., Chairman, Committee on Health,
      Education, Labor and Pensions, opening statement...............     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     2
    Wheelan, Belle S., Secretary of Education, Commonwealth of
      Virginia.......................................................     4
    Moloney, William J., Commissioner of Education, Colorado
      Department of Education, Denver, CO, prepared statement........     9
    Casserly, Michael, Executive Director, Council of the Great City
      Schools, Washington, DC, prepared statement....................    54
    Gaddis, Wanda, Parent, Washington, DC, on behalf of the National
      PTA, prepared statement........................................    68

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Response to questions of Senator Kennedy from Belle S. Wheelan...    82
    Virginia Local School Divisions, survey..........................    82

       SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF TITLE I: STATE AND LOCAL PERSPECTIVES

                                  ----------

                          TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2002

                                           U.S. Senate,
           Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
                                                         Washington, DC
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room
    SD-430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Edward M. Kennedy
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Kennedy, Jeffords, and Bingaman.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KENNEDY

        The Chairman. We have a vote at half past 10, sort of a new
    tradition around here, unfortunately. We used to always vote in
    the afternoon, but now, sometimes and too often, we are voting
    in the morning, which interrupts our hearings, but nonetheless
    we will follow the Senate procedures and move ahead with our
    hearing this morning. We will be joined shortly by a number of
    our colleagues.
        Today we continue our series of oversight hearings on the
    implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, signed into law
    in January. Our hearing today focuses on the implementation of
    the largest program in that law, Title I.
        Title I is the foundation of our Federal education law for
    elementary and secondary education. It provides funding to help
    students and teachers in schools that are falling behind. Title
    I embodies our commitment as a Nation to provide all Americans
    with an equal shot at the American dream.
        But today that commitment is in jeopardy. The
    Administration's education budget puts a quality education out
    of reach for millions of our school children and college
    students. It shortchanges Title I, but it also does nothing to
    help schools achieve smaller class sizes and train quality
    teachers, and it adds not one dollar to the Pell grants just as
    young Americans are facing double-digit increases in college
    tuition.
        Good schools and good teachers are every bit as important
    to the future strength of our country as a strong defense. So
    today, Congressman George Miller and I will send a letter to
    the President, urging him to respond to the crisis in education
    that is gripping our country. We believe his education budget
    is inadequate to today's challenges. But even since it was
    submitted, State budget crises have forced over $10 billion in
    cuts in education.
        Budgets are tight, but somehow, the Administration has
    found billions of dollars in its budget for private school
    voucher schemes when those scarce dollars should be invested in
    our public schools, where 90 percent of our students attend
    school each day.
        Today's hearing focuses on the implementation of the
    reforms of Title I enacted earlier this year.
        We welcome our distinguished panelists today and look
    forward to learning about their plans to successfully implement
    the new Title I, the challenges they face, and how the
    Administration and Congress can help them overcome those
    challenges.
        Our panel includes Belle Wheelan, who is the Virginia
    Secretary of Education. Prior to her appointment, Dr. Wheelan
    served as president of the Northern Virginia Community College,
    the second-largest community college in the Nation. She has 18
    years of administrative experience at various community
    colleges throughout the State of Virginia. She is a highly
    respected member of the education field, and I am very pleased
    to have her here and look forward to her testimony on
    implementing Title I in Virginia.
        We would like to welcome Dr. William Moloney, the Colorado
    Commissioner of Education and Secretary of the Colorado State
    Board of Education. Dr. Moloney has previous experience as a
    teacher, assistant principal, principal, headmaster, assistant
    superintendent, and superintendent in States across the
    Northeast. Dr. Moloney has also served three terms on the
    National Assessment Governing Board. We are pleased to welcome
    Dr. Moloney today and look forward to his testimony.
        We would like to welcome Michael Casserly, who is executive
    director of the Council of the Great City Schools. For over 20
    years, Mr. Casserly has been an active crusader for the urban
    public schools of our Nation's largest cities. As executive
    director of the Council of the Great City Schools, Mr. Casserly
    heads the only national organization to exclusively represent
    such schools. Dr. Casserly also has extensive research
    background, having created the first ever report card on urban
    school quality and national urban education goals. We are
    pleased to have him here today and look forward to his
    testimony on the implementation of ESEA from a district
    perspective.
        We also want to welcome Wanda Gaddis, who is the parent of
    a first grade daughter who attends public school here in
    Washington, DC. Education reform will not be successful without
    the input and help of parents across the country. I look
    forward to Ms. Gaddis' testimony on how we can best implement
    the No Child Left Behind Act from a parent's perspective. We
    have many provisions in the legislation to include parents, and
    we want to find out how those provisions are being implemented.
        So we look forward to the testimony, and I will ask Ms.
    Wheelan if she would be good enough to start.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Kennedy follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Senator Edward M. Kennedy
        Today, we continue our series of oversight hearings on the
    implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, signed into law in
    January. Our hearing today focuses on the implementation of the largest
    program in that law, Title I.
        Title I is the foundation of our Federal education law for
    elementary and secondary education. It provides funding to help
    students and teachers in schools that are falling behind. Title I
    embodies our commitment as a Nation to provide all Americans with an
    equal shot at the American dream.
        But today that commitment is in jeopardy. The Administration's
    education budget puts a quality education out of reach for millions of
    our school children and college students. It shortchanges Title I, but
    it also does nothing to help schools achieve smaller class sizes and
    train quality teachers, and it adds not one dollar to Pell Grants just
    as young Americans are facing double digit increases in college
    tuition.
        Good schools and good teachers are every bit as important to the
    future strength of our country as a strong defense. So today,
    Congressman George Miller and I send a letter to the President, urging
    him to respond to the crisis in education that is gripping our country.
    We believe his education budget is inadequate to today's challenges.
    But even since it was submitted, State budget crises have forced over
    $10 billion in cuts for education.
        Budgets are tight. But somehow, the Administration has found
    billions of dollars in its budget for private school voucher schemes
    when those scarce dollars should be invested in our public schools,
    where 90 percent of our students attend school each day.
        Today's hearing focuses on the implementation of the reforms to
    Title I enacted earlier this year.
        Over the years, we have taken steps to improve the effectiveness of
    Title I, and in 1965, the first year of the Title I program, Title I
    was essentially a block grant. After 4 years of implementation, Title I
    block grant funds were not helping the neediest students get a better
    education. A 1969 report found widespread abuse of the Title I block
    grants, including:

         Communities had used Title I block grants for swimming
    pools in Memphis, Tennessee, band uniforms in Oxford, Mississippi, and
    football uniforms in Macon County, Alabama; and
         In Louisiana and California, funds were spent on schools
    that were ineligible for Title I because they did not have high numbers
    of poor children.

        We've come a long way since then. Title I is successfully helping
    the neediest children across the country get a good education. In
    Broward County, Florida, reading scores for 4th graders went up by 25
    points from 1999 to 2000. Last year, Sacramento, California improved
    its reading and math performance on the statewide test in every grade.
    And, I'm certain we will hear of more successes today.
        Building on those successes, we made a bipartisan commitment last
    year to ensure that not some, but all students were part of this
    success. We did this by increasing accountability through rigorous
    annual goals for improving achievement, ensuring a qualified teacher in
    every classroom, and providing increased resources for programs that
    work.
        In August, the Administration released draft regulations for Title
    I, and they are working to finalize those so that states, districts,
    teachers, and parents will have a clearer sense of what is expected of
    them under the new law. I hope that the final regulations will protect
    the rights of teachers as workers, will uphold the law with reasonable
    public school choice provisions, and will ensure that supplemental
    service providers are held to a standard of quality and that they must
    serve all children.
        But in the end, schools cannot fulfill the promise of this new law
    if they do not have the resources to meet these goals. I hope that the
    Administration will work with us to increase funding for education this
    year. With more requirements to meet, more progress to achieve, and
    increased State and local budget shortfalls, schools and teachers need
    more Federal resources to make this law a success.
        The Administration has proposed the smallest education budget
    increase in 7 years. Less than 2 months after passage of the No Child
    Left Behind Act, the Administration proposed a budget that is $7
    billion less than the amount promised in that legislation and cuts
    funding for school reform.
        Under Title I alone, 6 million children will be left behind. In
    other programs, 33,000 fewer students will be served in after-school
    programs. 25,000 limited English proficient children will be cut from
    Federal bilingual education programs. 18,000 fewer teachers will be
    trained.
        The growing State and local budget crisis borne of the down-turned
    economy has led to dramatic cuts in neighborhood schools across the
    country.

         This Fall, over 100 rural school districts in South
    Dakota, Louisiana, Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming will cut
    from 5-day to 4-day school weeks.
         Schools in Barnstable, Massachusetts, are charging fees in
    the hundreds of dollars for busing, for all day kindergarten, and for
    music education.
         In Centennial, Minnesota, we are told that class sizes
    will increase to 29 and 30 students per teacher to cope with budget
    shortfalls.

        Now, despite increased public education challenges, inadequate
    Federal support, and greater public school needs, the Administration
    presses anew for private school vouchers. This week, the House
    Republican leadership plans to bring to the floor a tax package that
    diverts $4 billion in funds to private school vouchers.
        We should reject the private school voucher plans and increase
    funding for public schools that educate 90 percent of the children in
    this nation, so that we help ensure that no child is left behind.
        Every dollar in subsidies to private school vouchers means a dollar
    less for public schools. $4 billion in vouchers could instead be used
    to:

         Upgrade the skills of 1 million teachers;
         Provide 5.2 million more children with after-school
    learning opportunities; or
         Provide specialized instruction to over 2 million poor
    children currently left behind.

        We welcome our distinguished panelists today, and we look forward
    to learning about their plans to successfully implement the new Title
    I, the challenges they face, and how the Administration and Congress
    can help them overcome those challenges.

        STATEMENT OF BELLE S. WHEELAN, SECRETARY OF EDUCATION,
                        COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

        Ms. Wheelan. Thank you, Senator Kennedy, and good morning.
        It is an honor to join you to discuss the Commonwealth of
    Virginia's implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act of
    2001.
        Academic success for all our students is one of Governor
    Mark Warner's top priorities, and the Commonwealth supports the
    goals of the No Child Left Behind Act. Virginia has had an
    accountability system in place for a number of years and is
    experiencing success in raising student achievement.
        We are particularly pleased with the success we are seeing
    in some of our most challenging schools. Over the months since
    its passage, we have worked continually to address its major
    requirements and to plan for the achievement of its goals.
        Four key issues are being addressed that I would like to
    discuss this morning. First is the provision of public school
    choice and supplemental services; second, assistance to Title I
    schools identified as needing improvement; third, development
    of ``highly-qualified'' teachers; and fourth, establishing and
    achieving adequate yearly progress in academics for schools and
    school divisions.
        Based on Virginia's Standards of Learning test administered
    during the 2000-2001 school year, 7 percent of Virginia's 1,800
    public schools currently are accredited with warning in one or
    more subjects. Virginia has 34 Title I schools in 9 of our 132
    school divisions identified as needing improvement under No
    Child Left Behind and thus required to implement public school
    choice this school year. Four of these schools are in three
    rural divisions. The rest are in urban divisions. They are all
    implementing plans to provide public school choice to parents.
        In July, the Virginia Board of Education adopted final
    guidelines for school divisions to follow in the provision of
    choice. These guidelines reflect the law's requirements and
    also require school divisions to follow and document best
    efforts procedures, including exploring scheduling and staffing
    alternatives for potential receiving schools and establishing
    cooperative agreements with neighboring school divisions.
        Letters, meetings, and radio and television announcements
    are being used to notify parents of public school choice
    options, and we will know by the end of the month how many
    parents have taken advantage of the option.
        There are challenges to providing public school choice, and
    capacity is among the most significant. In some of our urban
    divisions with schools in improvement, potential receiving
    schools are limited, or there are no qualified receiving
    schools at all. In these cases, surrounding school divisions
    have been contacted, but a lack of sufficient capacity has kept
    agreements of acceptance from being achieved. Moreover, in
    rural southwest Virginia, distances between schools within a
    division can be significant, and the time needed for
    transportation becomes a barrier to choice. Clearly,
    flexibility to offer supplemental services and other
    instructional alternatives is critical when public school
    choice cannot be provided.
        We will be monitoring the implementation of public school
    choice plans on a monthly basis and will ask for alternative
    strategies if a school division demonstrates that offering
    choice is not feasible. While we are making every effort to
    implement public school choice, we believe it most important to
    direct our efforts to ensuring that every school in Virginia is
    a school of choice. To that end, Governor Warner initiated the
    Partnership for Achieving Successful Schools, known as PASS, to
    assist low-performing schools.
        PASS is a statewide partnership with business and community
    leaders, State educators, and local school and government
    officials to boost student achievement in Virginia's lowest
    academically-performing schools. It will assist more than 100
    academically warned schools with a comprehensive plan to
    marshal community and business support. These schools will
    receive enhanced services from visiting academic review teams
    comprised of principals, teachers, and retired educators. Major
    components of the initiative are onsite assessments and
    support, hands-on training in strategies to address weaknesses,
    and peer partnerships between high-poverty and high-performing
    schools, staff and colleagues facing the same challenges.
        All the schools needing improvement are high-poverty. An
    important component of the PASS academic assistance teams is
    that the members come from schools with similar demographics
    that are achieving academic success. For example, in one of the
    partner middle schools in an urban area, the passing rate on
    the States's Standards of Learning Algebra I test rose from 20
    percent to 100 percent in 3 years. In a rural partner
    elementary school, the passing rate in the grade 3 mathematics
    test rose from 23 percent to 100 percent. The issue is not that
    children cannot learn. We simply need to apply the best
    strategies and resources to teach them.
        PASS schools are being provided assistance that goes beyond
    just dollars, but financial resources are critical. All PASS
    schools would benefit from the intense, onsite technical
    assistance teams that we currently are only able to provide to
    a few of our lowest-performing schools. Additional Federal
    assistance would help the Commonwealth expand this initiative
    to additional schools.
        We fully support the Act's requirement of having a
    ``highly-qualified'' teacher in every classroom in a core
    academic rouse. In Virginia, a highly-qualified teacher is
    defined as one who is fully licensed by the State and teaching
    in his or her area of endorsement. This month, the Board of
    Education will initiate the review of regulatory and policy
    actions necessary to meet the goal of all teachers being
    highly-qualified by 2005-2006.
        A threshold challenge in achieving this is the need to
    identify with accuracy the number of highly-qualified teachers
    who are currently in the classrooms and the types of
    professional data being offered them. We are working to put in
    place State and local data collection and verification systems
    to accomplish this. However, it is a difficult process that
    will require additional resources and as much as a year to
    complete. However, we recognize that a realistic plan for
    raising the numbers of highly-qualified teachers is dependent
    upon hard data.
        Another challenge is the strategic use of resources
    available for the retention, recruitment, preparation, and
    professional development of teachers. Over the past year, we
    have been taking a comprehensive look at strategies to ensure
    the recruitment and retention of highly-qualified teachers. Not
    all solutions are related to money, but additional resources
    are key in order for us to provide professional development for
    teachers and principals, both new and existing.
        Receipt of Federal Title II funds for highly-qualified
    teachers and principals is also essential to these efforts.
    Equally important to school divisions is the flexibility to use
    these moneys in a variety of ways, from financial incentive for
    recruitment and placement to training in instructional methods,
    to professional development in leadership for principals.
        We have seen some of our most challenged schools succeed
    and achieve accreditation through principles that have built
    their own teams of highly-qualified teachers through joint
    planning and collaboration. Funding to help develop more
    principals with these skills will help ensure that we have
    highly-qualified teachers in each classroom.
        Federal financial support is especially critical in light
    of the current budget shortfalls we are facing at the State
    level, as well as the pressure on local resources associated
    with ensuring the best in education for our children.
        This fall, we will be reviewing the results of Virginia's
    Standards of Learning tests from the 2001-2002 school year and
    determining the starting point and the annual objectives for
    academic achievement in mathematics and English required under
    the adequate yearly progress provisions of the law. In November
    and December, we anticipate a public discussion of
    recommendations by the Board of Education, with formal adoption
    of adequate yearly progress objectives by January. As a State
    with an established accountability system for schools, we
    encourage flexibility in the implementation of this aspect of
    the Act as we work through the details.
        We fully support the law's requirement to measure academic
    achievement beyond school divisions and schools as a whole to
    groups of students who are disadvantaged, who are minorities,
    who have limited English proficiency, or who have disabilities.
    At the same time, there are particular challenges to ensuring
    that these students make academic objectives, and additional
    resources are needed to ensure that success. For example,
    through research and experience in some of our classrooms, we
    know that smaller class sizes in the early grades benefit
    disadvantaged and limited English-proficient students. However,
    reduction of class size requires more teachers and the
    construction of more classrooms.
        Moreover, while we support the Individuals with
    Disabilities Education Act's mandate that schools provide
    tailored educational programs to all children with
    disabilities, the lack of sufficient resources has made it
    difficult for schools to meet the needs of children with
    special physical, emotional, and developmental needs. As a
    result, local school districts have scrambled for decades to
    find ways to fund these specialized educational services. More
    often than not, resources are pulled from other instructional
    programs, and therefore, funding for all students is lessened
    in order to meet IDEA requirements.
        With State and local revenues declining, it is more
    critical than ever that the Federal Government fully fund IDEA
    to meet the 40 percent commitment that was established when it
    was passed in 1975. This will better enable States and local
    school divisions to meet the requirements of the No Child Left
    Behind legislation.
        I appreciate the opportunity to provide this information
    today. This Act provides the opportunity to further our ongoing
    efforts to raise the level of achievement for all students
    throughout the Commonwealth, and we look forward to a continued
    partnership with the Federal Government.
        The Chairman. That was very helpful. We'll have questions
    in just a few minutes.
        Dr. Moloney?

      STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. MOLONEY, COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION,
              COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, DENVER, CO

        Mr. Moloney. Mr. Chairman, good morning, and thank you for
    the opportunity to testify regarding the implementation of the
    most important piece of Federal education legislation to come
    forth in over a generation.
        I was in this city in 1965, present at the creation of the
    Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I well recall the
    shining idealism and buoyant optimism that attended that hour.
        For the last 27 years, in circumstances rural, suburban,
    urban, and statewide, I have been an administrator responsible
    for the implementation of that Act. In Massachusetts, Rhode
    Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and now Colorado, I
    have sought to realize the great promise we saw 37 years ago.
        Compared to the several earlier reauthorizations of ESEA,
    what the Congress, by overwhelming vote, delivered to the
    American people in January is a thing dramatically and
    importantly different. Though obvious similarities of structure
    and purpose remain, H.R. 1 marks a striking change in the
    character and culture of Federal education legislation. Its
    unambiguous insistence on results marked a historic shift from
    a climate of process and entitlement to one of stark
    accountability for the well-being of all children.
        The very real concerns you are hearing about implementation
    are eloquent testimony to the startling sea change which you
    have ordained. We must be sensitive to those concerns. As I
    must be sensitive to the voices that come from Colorado's 178
    school districts, so must my 49 counterparts do the same in
    their States.
        What is vitally important is that we are responsive to
    those concerns in a manner that is appropriate but not in a
    fashion that can in any way undermine the firm purpose that you
    defined or the depth of commitment that we all must maintain if
    we are to make the most of the historic opportunity before us.
        Let me speak of Colorado. I believe we are among those
    States that seem to be coping fairly well with the task. This
    is not because of any innate cleverness on our part, but
    rather, over the last decade, Colorado has been pursuing
    education reform goals very much in tune with those goals
    defined in H.R. 1.
        In the attachments to my testimony, and I am sure in the
    questions that you will want to ask, you will find explication
    of how Colorado has been able to move forward regarding issues
    of choice, supplemental services, and adequate yearly progress.
    In all of these areas, as well as others, the door to these
    goals had been opened several years ago through State
    legislation and our efforts to fulfill it.
        In working with our districts, we find that many of them
    have been moving forward on these goals for several years,
    while others have not. while we properly commend the front
    runners, we also recognize an obligation to reach out the hand
    of encouragement and support to those who have further to go.
        In much the same way, the U.S. Department of Education is
    conducting 50 separate conversations with the States of our
    Union and has shown commendable probity and sensitivity in
    doing so.
        Most properly, they have maintained a strict insistence on
    those unambiguous goals that you have set down in the
    legislation, but at the same time, they have signaled their
    willingness to be flexible and to work closely with all States
    in regards to the means of implementation.
        Nowhere has this indispensable balance been better
    articulated than in the message of Secretary Rod Paige.
    Speaking with the moral clarity and conviction that a mission
    of ``leaving no child behind'' requires, he has clearly
    acknowledged the extraordinary dimensions of our task and
    signaled a deep commitment to working closely with us.
        We are proud that Colorado districts were among those
    recognized last week in a White House ceremony by President
    Bush and Members of Congress. I assure you that the list of
    schools and districts doing well with this in Colorado will
    grow steadily, as will be the case all across our great
    country.
        Nonetheless, we would be irresponsible if we did not
    recognize the great dangers that lie before us. We must know
    that this great task is no sure thing. We must honestly admit
    that there are large portions of our population, particularly
    those of poverty and color, who are frankly very skeptical that
    our performance will match our promises.
        A story illustrates that frustration that we see. Twenty
    years ago, while an assistant superintendent in Rochester, I
    was confronted by an angry mother at a parent forum discussing
    the chronic shortcomings of our city schools. Apparently, my
    platitudes about how the city was committed to systemic change
    and how real change takes real time caused her to lose it
    altogether. I shall never forget how she looked at me, and I am
    yet haunted by her understandably heated words: ``I can't wait
    for you to fix your system. My child needs help now.''
        America cannot afford such an ebbing of confidence in our
    public school system. This awareness, this apprehension, is
    what energizes us in Colorado. Two years ago, we established a
    Coalition to Close the Achievement Gap. Its co-chairs are the
    highest-ranking officials of the Democratic and Republican
    parties in our State. We took as our inspiration the words and
    example of Ron Edmonds, an African American educator who
    founded the effective school movement. This is what he said:
    ``We can, whenever and wherever we choose to, successfully
    teach all children whose schooling is of interest to us. We
    already know more than we need to do that. Whether or not we do
    it must finally depend on how we feel about the fact that we
    have not so far.''
        With such inspiration, our coalition constructed a very
    brief statement of purpose which includes these words: ``If our
    American democracy is to ensure and prosper, it cannot be as a
    society that tolerates two systems of education--one of high
    expectations for the children of the fortunate and one of
    lesser standards for children of poverty and color. Perhaps for
    some, there is no crisis in education, but for our most
    vulnerable children, it is more than a crisis. It is a state of
    national emergency. We commit to this challenge not just
    because it is the right thing to do, but because it is nothing
    less than a moral imperative.''
        Finally, thank you for this law. You did not call it ``some
    children left behind'' or ``the usual children left behind''
    but instead, ``no child left behind.''
        If you stay the course, so shall we. We are Americans. We
    can do this. We must do this.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Moloney follows:]
      Prepared Statement of William J. Moloney, Colorado Commissioner of
                  Education, Colorado Department of Education
        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, good morning and thank you
    for the opportunity to testify regarding the implementation of the most
    important piece of Federal education legislation to come forth in over
    a generation.
        I was in this city in 1965, present at the creation of the
    Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). I well recall the
    shining idealism and buoyant optimism that attended that hour.
        For the last 27 years in circumstances rural, suburban, urban, and
    statewide, I have been an administrator responsible for the
    implementation of that Act. In Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York,
    Pennsylvania, Maryland, and now Colorado, I have sought to realize that
    great promise we saw 37 years ago.
        Compared to the several earlier reauthorizations of ESEA, what the
    Congress by overwhelming vote delivered to the American people in
    January is a thing dramatically and importantly different.
        Though obvious similarities of structure and purpose remain, H.R. 1
    marks a striking change in the character and culture of Federal
    education legislation. Its unambiguous insistence on results marked a
    historic shift from a climate of process and entitlement to one of
    stark accountability for the well being of all children.
        The very real concerns you are hearing about implementation are
    eloquent testimony to the startling sea change which you have ordained.
        We must be sensitive to those concerns. As I must be sensitive to
    the voices that come from Colorado's 178 school districts, so must my
    49 counterparts do the same in their states.
        What is vitally important is that we are responsive to those
    concerns in a manner that is appropriate but not in a fashion that can
    in any way undermine the firm purpose that you defined or the depth of
    commitment that we all must maintain if we are to make the most of the
    historic opportunity before us.
        Let me speak of Colorado.
        I believe that we are among those states that seem to be coping
    fairly well with the task which H.R. 1 sets before us.
        This is not because of any innate cleverness on our part but rather
    over the last decade Colorado has been pursuing education reform goals
    very much in tune with those goals defined by H.R. 1.
        Beginning with the Education Reform Act of 1993 signed into law by
    Governor Roy Romer and culminating in the School Accountability
    Legislation signed into law by Governor Bill Owens 8 years later,
    Colorado has been pushing on the envelope that is the status quo. As
    always happens the status quo pushes back but in the main our
    conversations have been reasonably civil and we have never lost sight
    of the fact that the ties that bind us together are infinitely more
    numerous and important than the issues that occasionally draw us apart.
        In the attachments to my testimony and I am sure in the questions
    that you will want to ask, you will find explication of how Colorado
    has been able to move forward regarding issues of choice, supplemental
    services and adequate yearly progress. In all of these areas as well as
    others, the door to these goals had been opened several years ago
    through State legislation and our efforts to fulfill it.
        In working with our 178 districts, we recognize that they are in
    178 different places. Many of them have been moving forward on these
    goals for several years while others have not. While we properly
    commend the front runners, we also recognize an obligation to reach out
    the hand of encouragement and support to those who have further to go.
        In much the same way, the U.S. Department of Education is
    conducting 50 separate conversations with the states of our union and
    has shown commendable probity and sensitivity in doing so.
        Most properly, they have maintained a strict insistence on those
    unambiguous goals that you have set down in the legislation but at the
    same time they have clearly signaled their willingness to be flexible
    and to work closely with all states as regards the means of
    implementation.
        No where has this indispensable balance been better articulated
    than in the message Secretary Rod Paige has brought to school systems
    all across the county. Speaking with the moral clarity and conviction
    that a mission of ``leaving no child behind'' requires, he has clearly
    acknowledged the extraordinary dimensions of our task and signaled a
    deep commitment to working closely with us as we seek to meet these
    challenges.
        We are very proud that Colorado districts were among those
    recognized last week in a White House ceremony by President Bush and
    Members of Congress. I assure you that the list of schools and
    districts doing well with this in Colorado will grow steadily as will
    be the case all across our great country.
        Nonetheless, we would be irresponsible if we did not recognize the
    great dangers that lie before us. We must know that this great task is
    no sure thing. We must honestly admit that there are large portions of
    our population, particularly those of poverty and color, who are
    frankly very skeptical that our performance will match our promises.
        A story illustrates that frustration which has grown over the
    years:

              Twenty years ago while assistant superintendent in Rochester,
            I was confronted by an angry mother at a parent forum
            discussing the chronic shortcomings of our city schools.
              Apparently my platitudes about how the city was committed to
            systemic change and how real change takes real time caused her
            to lose it altogether.
              I shall never forget how she looked at me, and I am yet
            haunted by her understandably heated words: I can't wait for
            you to fix your system. My child needs help now!''

        America can not afford such an ebbing of confidence in our public
    school system.
        This awareness, this apprehension is what energizes us in Colorado.
    Two and a half years ago we established a Coalition to Close the
    Achievement Gap. It's co-chairs are the highest ranking officials of
    the Democratic and Republican party in our state--Attorney General Ken
    Salazar and Governor Bill Owens respectively.
        We took as our inspiration the words and example of Ron Edmonds an
    African American educator who founded the Effective School Movement.
    This is what he said:

              ``We can, whenever and wherever we choose to, successfully
            teach all children whose schooling is of interest to us.
              We already know more than we need to do that.
              Whether or not we do it must finally depend on how we feel
            about the fact that we haven't so far.''

        With such inspiration, our Coalition constructed a very brief
    statement of purpose (see Appendix V), which includes these words:

              ``If our American democracy is to endure and prosper, it
            cannot be as a society that tolerates two systems of
            education--one of high expectation for the children of the
            fortunate and one of lesser standards for children of poverty
            and color. . . .
              Perhaps for some there is no crisis in education, but for our
            most vulnerable children, it is more than a crisis: It is a
            State of national emergency.
              We commit to this challenge, not just because it is the right
            thing to do, but because it is nothing less than a moral
            imperative.''

        Finally, thank you for this law. You did not call it ``some
    children left behind'' or ``the usual children left behind'' but
    instead ``no child left behind.''
        If you stay the course, so shall we. We are Americans. We can do
    this. We must do this.
        Thank you.

        [Attachments I-V follow:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.041

        The Chairman. Mr. Casserly.

     STATEMENT OF MICHAEL CASSERLY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COUNCIL OF
                 THE GREAT CITY SCHOOLS, WASHINGTON, DC

        Mr. Casserly. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very
    much for the opportunity to testify before this committee, and
    thank you for your leadership on this legislation and on
    education issues.
        As the chairman knows, the Council of the Great City
    Schools supported No Child Left Behind when it passed, and we
    support it today. We did so because the bill set the right
    goals, and it focused on the right kids.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a number of quick points
    about the legislation and its implementation. First, our cities
    are committed to making this bill work. That commitment has
    been matched by efforts from day one. We began meeting with the
    cities and the city schools on December 10, the very day that
    the Congress was finalizing the conference report on H.R. 1, in
    order to begin the process of implementing the law. We followed
    that initial session with scores of meetings, briefings,
    conference calls, onsite technical assistance and exchanges,
    and the cities did all of this on their own since January in
    order to make this law work. Most of our cities began the
    process of implementing the law almost immediately after it was
    signed.
        One of the side effects of the bill has been better
    coordination. The legislation reaches into so many operations
    in our school systems that we have almost had to cooperate. The
    superintendent and senior staff have also been personally
    engaged in this process in ways that I have not seen in the
    five reauthorizations of ESEA that I have participated in.
        Second, people should not confuse frustration with the Act
    for a shortage of resolve. We often lack capacity; we do not
    lack will. We know that there is resistance to the Act in some
    quarters, but that resistance does not exist in the cities. We
    see the national focus on our children as an opportunity, not
    as an intrusion.
        Third, we have received good support from the Department of
    Education. The guidance that they provided us in the first 6
    months after passage of the Act was sufficient to get us
    started. We didn't wait for somebody to tell us what to do. The
    law was very clear about what the goals were and how it was
    that we were supposed to proceed.
        Fourth, the Council has begun to collect information from
    the cities on key issues that we know are of interest to this
    committee and to the public. We have preliminary information on
    24 cities, a summary of which is attached to my testimony.
        The choice option in particular has not been easy. Early
    information indicates that parental requests are being honored
    in the cities, usually with two or more options to parents.
    Some cities have open seats in nearly every school. Other
    cities are so overcrowded or have so many schools in school
    improvement that our degrees of freedom are limited. The result
    in these cities is that the number of transfers is not as high
    as many had originally expected, but we anticipate that this is
    likely to change in the years to come.
        Supplemental services are a new feature of the legislation,
    unlike the choice provisions. This process is moving slower
    than we would like. About 14 of the 20 States on which we have
    preliminary information have yet to issue lists of approved
    providers to our cities, and it has slowed the process somewhat
    of providing supplemental services beginning at the start of
    the school year.
        Fifth, most of our city schools are showing signs of
    improving student achievement, the ultimate purpose of this
    legislation, and about 40 percent of the cities are showing
    gains that outpace statewide averages. We expect that this pace
    will accelerate.
        We have also finished a major new analysis on what the
    fastest-improving cities have done to get gains systemwide.
    This report, ``Foundations for Success,'' indicates that their
    gains are not episodic. There are common practices similar to
    those called for in No Child Left Behind that undergird these
    cities' improvements. The results give us confidence that we
    are on the right track.
        Ultimately, of course, the Act will not be scored against
    how many requirements we meet or how many kids we bus from one
    school to another. The Act will be judged on how many
    children's achievement we raise and achieving the overall goal
    and vision of this legislation of leaving no child behind.
        Finally, we need help implementing the Act. We need better
    technical assistance from the States, and we need considerably
    more funding from the Administration and Congress targeted on
    need to ensure the bill's success.
        We pledge our best efforts to spend the money wisely and to
    implement the law faithfully.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Casserly follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Michael Casserly, Executive Director, Council of
                             the Great City Schools
        Good morning, my name is Michael Casserly. I am the Executive
    Director of the Council of the Great City Schools. Thank you for the
    opportunity to testify before this Committee on the implementation of
    No Child Left Behind.
        The Council is a coalition of nearly 60 of the nation's largest
    urban public school systems. Our Board of Directors is composed of the
    Superintendent of Schools and one School Board member from each city,
    making the Council the only national organization comprised of both
    governing and administering personnel and the only one whose sole
    mission and purpose is urban.
        Our member urban school systems educate over 6.5 million students
    or about 14 percent of the nation's K-12 public school enrollment. Some
    63 percent of our students are eligible for a free lunch and about 21
    percent are English Language Learners. Approximately 80 percent of our
    students are African American, Hispanic or Asian American.
        The Council of the Great City Schools supported the passage of No
    Child Left Behind and continues to support the Act today. We backed the
    bill knowing that it had numerous challenges for urban schools,
    multiple requirements, and sometimes poorly calibrated provisions. The
    Council supported the legislation because it set the right goals and it
    focused on the right kids--those too often left behind. We also
    endorsed the legislation because Congress generously funded the Act in
    the first year and targeted the resources on communities that needed
    help the most.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a number of brief points about
    the legislation and its implementation.
        First, our cities are committed to making this bill work. That
    commitment has been matched with effort since the day the bill was
    passed. Over half of the nation's major city school systems convened in
    Washington on December 10, 2001 for 4 days of meetings on what the bill
    meant and how we could begin the process of implementing it. We
    followed that initial session with literally scores of meetings,
    briefings, group conference calls, and onsite technical assistance
    sessions to turn the bill's promise into reality. We used these
    sessions to answer questions, interpret the law, provide guidance,
    share materials, and clarify intent. The cities did this on their own.
        Most cities responded by starting their planning process
    immediately. New York City, for example, assembled a cabinet-level task
    force on January 16 to initiate the implementation process. Greenboro
    (NC) began implementation meetings on February 22 with its board,
    superintendent, senior management, and all school principals.
        One of the unintended--and positive--side-effects of the
    legislation has been better coordination among staff. NCLB reached
    beyond Title I into curriculum, instruction, personnel, procurement,
    budget, student assignment, transportation, strategic planning,
    assessment, research and evaluation, data systems, and management. In
    nearly every Great City School system, the superintendent and his
    cabinet-level administrators have been engaged personally in
    implementing the Act at a level I have not seen in the five other ESEA
    reauthorizations in which I have participated.
        Second, Members of Congress and the press should not mistake
    frustration over implementing the Act with a lack of resolve. This bill
    is extremely complicated. We are having some problems with capacity and
    logistics, but not with will. We know that there is resistance to and
    hesitation about the Act among some groups, but we have not seen it
    from the cities. We see the national focus on educating our neediest
    children as an opportunity, not an intrusion.
        Third, we have received good support from the U.S. Department of
    Education from the time the bill was signed and throughout the summer.
    The Council and its cities felt that we had sufficient information to
    implement the Act and did not need to wait to be told what to do. The
    Act is quite detailed in its requirements and does not need extensive
    explication. The meetings and guidance provided by the Department in
    the first 6 months were sufficent to allow us to get started. We have
    also appreciated the flexibility that the Department has used in the
    regulatory process, not regulating in places where it was unnecessary.
        We recognize that many States have hesitated to provide school
    districts with much direction prior to the Department of Education's
    final regulations and nonregulatory guidance. We have not had the
    luxury of waiting. The first year's requirements and short timelines
    meant that we could not delay local planning and decisionmaking.
        Fourth, the Council has begun to collect information from its
    cities on key implementation features that we know are of interest to
    you and the public. We have preliminary information from 24 cities, the
    summary of which is attached to this testimony.
        The most pressing implementation issues for this new school year
    (2002-2003) involve public school choice, transportation, and
    supplemental services. One locality hardly looks like another at this
    point. There are some states, for instance, where no schools or nearly
    no schools are identified for ``school improvement'' because of how
    they defined and implemented the 1994 Act. No school districts in these
    states--including their biggest cities--will be implementing the
    required public school transfers or supplemental services. Other states
    have retroactively reduced the number of low-performing schools by
    redefining the criteria for adequate yearly progress under the
    preceding reauthorization. There will still be large numbers of low-
    performing schools in these states, but not as many as were previously
    determined. Finally, most states appear to be successfully
    transitioning their identified schools from the 1994 Act to the new
    one.
        The public school transfer option has been in Federal law since the
    FY2000 appropriations bill, but reworking the student assignment plans
    in large urban school districts is not a simple undertaking.
    Nonetheless, early information from the 24 Great City School districts
    on which we have information indicate that parental choice requests are
    being honored. Many cities have worked to offer parents with two or
    more transfer options before the August 6 draft regulations proposed
    it. In a few cities, there were open seats available in nearly all the
    schools. In other cities, the combination of overcrowded schools and
    the number of schools in ``school improvement'' restricted the number
    of open seats to the hundreds. We know that the number of transfers are
    not as high as some had expected, but we anticipate that this may
    change.
        The most difficult aspect of this requirement, beyond its costs, is
    that the NCLB timelines are inconsistent with the open enrollment
    calendars in most school districts. Better coordination and integration
    of the NCLB provisions and the open enrollment procedures will likely
    produce a smoother and more coherent process next year.
        Supplemental services are an entirely new requirement for the 2002-
    2003 school year. There are a variety of steps that States have to take
    prior to making supplemental services available at the local level.
    This process is moving slower than we would like. About 14 of 20 States
    on which we have preliminary information have not yet issued a list of
    approved providers to their cities. Some of our cities have begun to
    implement supplemental services on their own.
        Fifth, the nation's urban school systems are showing signs of
    improving student achievement-the ultimate purpose of the Act. We
    released a report earlier this summer, Beating the Odds II, showing
    that nearly all of the cities were showing achievement gains in reading
    and math. About 40 percent of the cities are also showing gains that
    outpace statewide improvements. We expect that the pace will pick up.
        We have also finished a major new analysis of how the nation's
    major urban school districts have improved student performance
    systemwide. This report, Foundations for Success, indicates that their
    gains are not episodic. (See attached summary.) Instead, there are
    common practices in these city school systems-similar to those called
    for in No Child Left Behind--that undergird their improvements. The
    results give us a great deal of confidence that we are on the right
    track.
        Ultimately, the Act should not be scored on how many requirements
    we complied with or how many kids we bused from one school to another.
    This Act and our implementation of it should be judged on how many
    children, particularly poor and minority children, are improving their
    academic achievement. We know that the nation's performance is not
    likely to increase until the performance of its urban schools improve.
        Finally, we need help implementing the Act. We will need far better
    technical assistance from the states, labs and centers than we have
    received to date. We will also need additional funding from the
    Administration and Congress, targeted on the greatest needs, to ensure
    the bill's success. The bill's implementation has only begun--the new
    accountability definitions and their consequences are not even in place
    yet. The number of schools implementing one intervention strategy or
    another will probably increase substantially in the next year or two.
        We need Congress to continue increasing funding for Title I for
    disadvantaged children, Title II for teacher quality, and Title III for
    English Language Learners. We pledge our best efforts to spend the
    money wisely and implement the law faithfully.
        Thank you.
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81758.042

                 no child left behind--implementation snapshots
        Anchorage--The State of Alaska DOE will release a list of failing
    schools as determined by the State's AYP formula in January 2003.
    Anchorage currently has no schools identified for school improvement,
    but stands ready to work with schools that are identified by the State.
        Atlanta--Parents wishing to exercise their transfer option were
    asked to list the top three schools of their choice. The district
    negotiated personally with any parent whose highest preferences were
    filled to capacity and unavailable. The district had developed a plan
    to prioritize choice options to the lowest performing, low-income
    students, but has accommodated all transfer requests to date and has
    not utilized the priority system.
        Austin--Austin ISD has offered a choice between 2 higher-performing
    schools to students seeking transfer. In general, the choices offered
    were within geographic proximity to the original schools to limit the
    length of bus ride for students. The district has not needed to limit
    which students can receive transfers, and has accommodated all requests
    to date.
        Birmingham--Parents were given the opportunity to identify a 1st,
    2nd, and 3rd choice for school transfers, which were in clusters of
    schools within transportation zones. The State has not yet released a
    list of approved vendors for supplemental services, and the district is
    waiting to notify the parents of eligible students that these services
    are available.
        Boston--The school district has always offered a public school
    choice plan based on capacity, and will continue to do so. This choice
    will be offered to all students, and is not dependent on a school being
    low-performing: The State has yet to issue a list of supplemental
    service providers.
        Broward County--No schools in Florida have been identified for
    school improvement. In assessing the quality of paraprofessionals,
    Broward County offers a state-approved ``Teacher Assisting'' course at
    district technical centers. The course provides successful participants
    with a certificate after meeting high levels of study, performance, and
    examination. The district is also using Title I funds for the Broward
    Teacher Corps, which includes a segment that provides paraprofessionals
    with 60 college credit hours over 2 years. The district will allow
    paraprofessional candidates to use the ``Teacher Assisting'' course,
    the Broward Teacher Corps, or specific assessment results to
    demonstrate they are qualified.
        Clark County--All students requesting a transfer from schools
    identified for improvement will be accommodated in Clark County. The
    district sent a letter to parents of all eligible children and held
    meetings at school locations to explain the choice provision. Current
    students were given a 3-month window to exercise the transfer option,
    and all new students will also be given an opportunity to choose a
    higher-performing school.
        Cleveland--CMSD based the transfer system on geographic location
    and the number of seats available in higher-performing schools.
    Information on the transfer system is provided on the district website,
    and a brochure was also sent to parents. The brochure also included
    information on the availability of supplemental services, and the
    district will send a letter to parents regarding those options once a
    provider list is released by the State. The district already provides
    supplemental services through Sylvan Learning Centers, Read Right, and
    the HOSTS tutoring program, among others.
        Columbus--The district will offer transfers not only to students in
    schools identified for improvement, but also to students in schools
    identified by the district as ``prevention schools''. Prevention
    schools were originally included on the state's school improvement
    list, but were removed once the qualifying criteria were changed. The
    district is planning on providing afterschool tutoring programs for
    elementary reading and mathematics, and is also considering proficiency
    academies and summer school programs. The State has yet to issue a list
    of supplemental service providers.
        Denver--In January 2002, the district provided the parents of
    22,000 students in Title I school improvement or corrective action
    locations with written notification of the status of their child's
    school, as well as information about the DPS Choice process. The notice
    emphasized the right of parents to transfer their students to another
    school, in particular ones that were not identified for school
    improvement or corrective action. The district also promoted extensive
    coverage of Choice in local media, and parked a school bus with eye-
    catching Choice graphics at various high-traffic sites throughout the
    district. To date, over 3,000 students from low-performing schools have
    transferred to schools that are not in school improvement. Seventy-five
    out of 85 elementary schools were able to accept 100 percent of the
    students that applied to them in the First Round of Choice; 18 out of
    21 middle schools were able to accept 100 percent o of applying
    students in the First Round. The district is also looking at ways it
    can improve the Choice program for the 2003-04 school year, including
    an earlier start date, revising the letter to parents, and broadening
    the Choice options of schools for students.
        District of Columbia--Parents were notified of the transfer option
    over the summer, through letters and information on the district
    website. Receiving schools that students could transfer to were chosen
    on the basis of geographic proximity and academic achievement. Parents
    were given a cluster of 2 to 5 choices depending on their address, and
    most students received four choices. The district has also distributed
    information to parents regarding the availability of supplemental
    services, and additional information will be sent to homes when a
    provider list is finalized.
        Indianapolis--The district sent a letter to parents at the end of
    the 2001-02 school year and also held meetings explaining the transfer
    options that would be available for the upcoming school year. Current
    parents were given a month over the summer to exercise this option, and
    new students were given the chance to transfer until the start of the
    school year. Students at each identified school were given two options
    of higher-performing schools to choose from.
        Long Beach--The district has 12 schools eligible for public school
    choice under No Child Left Behind, and informed parents of the transfer
    options in a letter in July. Parents had until September to exercise
    their choice option, and students were offered transfers within the
    district's transportation zones.
        Nashville--Current parents were informed of the new choice
    provisions in late May and had until early August to exercise their
    child's option, while parents of new students had until just before the
    start of school. Brochures were sent out in multiple languages, schools
    held parent meetings to discuss the transfer option, and the district
    promoted the new, choices in local newspaper, television, and other
    media. Parents of eligible students were given a choice of schools
    within their geographical cluster, and the district also considered
    ``write-in'' choices if a parent's preference was not listed.
        Norfolk--Despite having no schools identified for improvement, the
    district will continue to provide individualized after-school tutoring
    among its extended day offerings. Computer-assisted lessons are one
    successful approach the district has employed in Norfolk's after-school
    programs.
        Philadelphia--In addition to the existing state-approved school
    choice program, the district has begun a No Child Left Behind choice
    program, which targets the highest-poverty schools in the district's
    ten Academic Areas. Eighty-two higher performing schools were
    identified to receive transferring students, and parents were informed
    of their options in a letter this summer. The district also sent a
    letter to parents regarding the availability of supplemental services,
    which will be offered by state-approved vendors in district schools.
    The supplemental services program will begin as soon as the State
    issues a list of approved providers.
        Saint Louis--The district sent letters to parents at the beginning
    of August explaining the transfer option, and outlined the choice of
    available high-performing schools. The schools accepting transferring
    students are high performing, and are not likely to be identified
    within the next few years. The district currently has 56 higher-
    performing schools that are at full capacity, and are unable to accept
    additional students for the 2002-03 school year.
        Saint Paul--School choice under Title I is being addressed through
    the district's usual school choice system. All parents annually are
    given the opportunity to sign up for the school(s) of their choice from
    a wide array of magnet and citywide schools with a variety of
    curriculum choices. Of the 451 students from low-performing schools who
    have exercised their transfer option to date, 448 students received
    their first choice and 3 students received their second choice. The
    district will also operate Area Learning Centers (ALC) as part of the
    statewide after-school initiative. ALC targets at-risk K-6 graders in
    extended day sessions at the school site, and has an academic focus on
    language arts and mathematics. The centers are run by Minnesota-
    licensed teachers assisted by paraprofessionals, and students are also
    given the opportunity to complete homework, read books, and work in
    computer labs. All students participating in these extended day
    programs are given a free snack, and transportation is provided to
    eligible students living outside of the walking distance to school.
        San Diego--Parents may exercise their transfer option through early
    October, and the district has added additional bus routes and schools
    to their existing enrollment system specifically for students
    transferring from low-performing schools. The district is a state-
    approved supplemental service provider, and will offer programs in
    reading and mathematics for elementary and middle school students, as
    well as after-school preparation for the California High School Exit
    Exam for high school students. These programs have an average class
    size of 10:1, and are taught by teachers with enhanced instructional
    materials and specific professional development opportunities. The
    State identified only three other supplemental service providers in the
    geographic area, one of which has already indicated that it wil l not
    accept any additional students.
        Seattle--The district has been a leader in school choice options
    for families and these opportunities will continue with No Child Left
    Behind. Parents can request any school in the district, and 90 percent
    of on-time applicants received their first or second choice last year.
    Parents are advised where they can find more information about each
    school, including a summary of school activities and data on
    demographics, attendance, and test scores. All schools offer tours to
    interested parents and many schedule open houses as well. Parents can
    visit one of five enrollment centers around the city for more
    information, including a Bilingual Family Center with a multilingual
    staff and specific information for students whose first language is not
    English.

                                                         Title I.--Schools and School Improvement Status
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             No. of      No. of      No. of
                                                              Total      Title I     Title I    Non-Title  schools in  schools in  schools in      No. of
                                                             schools   schoolwide   targeted    I schools  sch. impr.- sch. impr.- corrective    schools in
                                                                                                                1           2        action    restructuring
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Anchorage............................................          84          13           5          66           0           0           0
    Atlanta..............................................         104          87           2          15           2          15           7             0
    Austin...............................................         107          60           0          47           2           2           0             0
    Birmingham...........................................          79          62           3          14           3           2           0             0
    Boston*..............................................         131         125           0           6          66           0           0             0
    Broward County.......................................         224          83           0         141           0           0           0             0
    Clark County.........................................         277          40           6         231           2           1           0             0
    Cleveland............................................         123          97          13          13           9          12           5             2
    Columbus.............................................         140         114           0          26          18          24          20             0
    Denver**.............................................         137          32          33          72          41           0           3             0
    District of Columbia.................................         149         149           0           0          15           0           0             0
    Fort Worth...........................................         114          65           0          49           0           0           0             0
    Guilford County......................................         101          32          11          58           0           0           0             0
    Hillsborough County..................................         186         103           0          83           4           0           0             0
    Indianapolis.........................................          80          18          37          25           5           5           0             0
    Long Beach...........................................          85          60           8          17           3           0           0
    Miami-Dade...........................................         333         172           2         159           0           0           0
    Nashville............................................         117          54           0          63           4           0           0             0
    Norfolk..............................................          55          18           0          37           0           0           0             0
    Philadelphia.........................................         265         225          40           0           0           0         178             0
    Saint Louis..........................................          95          90           3           2          17           0           0
    Saint Paul...........................................          67          44           7          16           2          16           0             0
    San Diego............................................         165          96           0          69          11          27           2             0
    Seattle..............................................         110          37           0          73           6           0           0             0
                                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL..............................................       3,328       1,876         170       1,282         210         113         215             2
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * Massachusetts DOE will release a revised list of schools identified for improvement in November 2002.
    ** All of Denver's Title I targeted programs will become schoolwide in 2002-2003.

       Foundations for Success--Case Studies of How Urban School Systems
                  Improve Student Achievement--Report Abstract
                             i. goals of the study
        The movement to reform education in the U.S. is fundamentally about
    improving urban public schools. Every debate about standards, testing,
    governance, busing, vouchers, charter schools, social promotions, class
    sizes, and accountability are discussions--at their core--about public
    education in the cities.
        These discussions are worth having, for nowhere does the national
    resolve to strengthen its educational system face a tougher test than
    in our inner cities. There, every problem is more pronounced; every
    solution harder to implement. The burden of not solving these problems
    or implementing successful improvement strategies has fallen
    disproportionately on the African American and Latino children,
    children with disabilities and those learning English who live in the
    poverty-stricken cores of America's major cities.
        The Nation cannot afford to ignore these communities, for urban
    schools enroll a large share of America's children. While there are
    16,850 public school districts in the United States, one hundred of
    those districts serve approximately 23 percent of the nation's
    students. These districts, many of which are located in urban areas,
    also serve 40 percent of the country's minority students and 30 percent
    of the economically disadvantaged students.
        This report and the longer-term project of which it is a part focus
    on the potential role of the school district as an initiator and
    sustainer of academic improvement. While there has been much research
    on what makes an effective school, there is relatively little, on what
    makes an effective district. In fact, many see large urban school
    districts as a source of problems rather than solutions. But for school
    improvement to be widespread and sustained, and for our Nation to
    reduce racial differences in academic achievement, large urban
    districts must play a key role.
        Over the past several years, the Council of the Great City Schools
    has embarked on an effort to understand student achievement patterns in
    large urban school districts and to develop ideas for how more
    districts can raise achievement. Previous Council research has shown
    that academic achievement is improving in urban schools and has
    identified a set of urban school districts that are making the fastest
    improvements, both overall and in narrowing differences among racial
    groups.
        This report extends the existing research by examining the
    experiences of three large urban school districts (and a portion of a
    fourth) that have raised academic performance for their district as a
    whole, while also reducing racial differences in achievement. It
    attempts to use the experiences of these school districts to address
    the following questions:
        1. What was the historical, administrative, and programmatic
    context within which student achievement improved in these districts?
        2. How can we characterize the nature of the changes in student
    achievement, and what were the sources of these changes (specific
    schools, subgroups of student, etc.)?
        3. What district-level strategies were used to improve student
    achievement and reduce racial disparities?
        4. What was the connection between policies, practices, and
    strategies at the district level and actual changes in teaching and
    learning in the classroom?
        The Council and the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation
    (MDRC) intend to use the answers to these questions to identify
    hypotheses for further study of promising practices at the district
    level and to develop recommendations for technical assistance in
    support of reform efforts in large urban school districts. Further, the
    Council and MDRC hope to encourage a line of discourse and research
    regarding the role of large urban districts in school reform.
    How Were the Case Study Districts Selected?
        The Council's Achievement Gap Task Force, together with its
    Research Advisory Group (which is made up of nationally known
    researchers and practitioners), identified three case study districts.
    These districts: Houston Independent School District; Charlotte-
    Mecklenburg Schools; Sacramento City Unified School District; and a
    portion of a fourth (the Chancellor's District in New York City) were
    selected because they met the following criteria:

         They demonstrated a trend of improved overall student
    achievement over at least 3 years.
         They demonstrated a trend of narrowing differences between
    white and minority students.
         They showed consistent improvement over at least a 3-year
    period and they were improving more rapidly than their respective
    states.
         They were a set of geographically representative urban
    school districts.
    What was the Methodology for the Study?
        This research is based on (1) retrospective case studies of these
    districts and (2) comparisons of their experiences with other districts
    that have not yet seen similar improvements. The case study districts
    are used to develop hypotheses about the reasons for improvements in
    achievement. The comparison districts provide a partial test of the
    hypotheses emerging from the analysis of the case study districts.
    While the comparison districts cannot provide definitive support for
    the hypotheses developed in the case study districts, they were used to
    discard possible hypotheses and to better understand what is unusual
    about the case study districts.
          ii. the educational challenges facing urban school districts
        The large urban school districts examined in this report face a
    common set of challenges that exist above the level of individual
    schools. The primary challenges include:
    Unsatisfactory Academic Achievement
        The reform efforts were driven by the concern that schools were
    failing their students--especially low-income and minority students--
    and that improving this pattern was the district's most important
    priority. In both the case study districts and the comparison
    districts, achievement for minority and disadvantaged students was
    noticeably below that for white and more affluent students. And the
    differences by race and economic status increased as students grew
    older.
    Political Conflict
        In each of the three case study districts, there had been a period
    when the school board was divided into factions, and much of its
    activity revolved around disputes over resources and influence. The
    school board's ``zero sum'' arguments often dealt with salaries, hiring
    and firing decisions, student assignment procedures, and school
    construction and closings. Factional disputes between department heads,
    the board versus the superintendent, superintendents versus principals,
    or principals versus teachers were common and often became serious and
    personal. At times, infighting was intense because the district was a
    major employer (especially for groups that historically faced
    discrimination in the labor market) and because participation in
    educational politics was a stepping-stone for higher political office.
    As a result, the leadership in these districts was often not focused
    primarily on improving student achievement.
    Inexperienced Teaching Staff
        Each of the case study districts acknowledged that they needed to
    deal with the fact that much of their teaching staff was relatively
    inexperienced and suffered from high teacher turnover, especially once
    teachers gained some initial experience. In part this was due to the
    challenge of recruiting and retaining teachers when school districts in
    the surrounding areas could offer teachers higher salaries, better
    facilities, a less challenged student body, and were seen as less
    stressful working environments. These difficulties were compounded by
    the limited training that the districts offered new teachers before
    they entered the classroom.
    Low Expectations and a Lack of Demanding Curriculum
        In each of the districts, staff felt overwhelmed at times by the
    great challenges that many of their lower-income and minority students
    faced. This led some staff to reduce expectations for achievement in
    the lower grades and justify the students' lack of progress. In the
    higher grades, where instruction and expectations can differ starkly
    across groups of students, low-income and minority students were under-
    represented in college preparatory and advanced placement classes. In
    some schools that served primarily low-income and minority students,
    the more demanding classes were offered infrequently or not at all.
    Lack of Instructional Coherence
        The study found that all districts suffered from having different
    educational initiatives and curricula in individual schools. Likewise,
    the districts discovered a lack of alignment between instruction and
    the State standards. Each of the districts had recently experimented
    with site-based management, which had produced a variety of different
    educational strategies within each district. This often proved
    confusing to school-level staff and difficult for the district to
    support. Additionally, the professional development strategy was
    fragmented; professional development was not focused on a consistent
    educational strategy (either of instruction or curricula) and often
    consisted of one-shot workshops on a series of topics.
    High Student Mobility
        Previous research suggests that moves between schools can undermine
    student learning. This problem may be exacerbated by variations in
    instructional approach. District leaders believed that the high rate at
    which students moved from one school to another within the districts
    disturbed the continuity of instruction students received in subjects
    such as reading and math. Some staff also noticed higher rates of
    mobility in the low-income student population and considered that
    another strike against their ability to achieve.
    Unsatisfactory Business Operations
        One of the most frustrating aspects of daily life for teachers and
    principals in ailing urban schools is the difficulty they face in
    getting the basic necessities to operate a school. All too often,
    school facilities were poorly maintained or dangerous, students were
    taught by substitutes for part or even all of the school year, and
    teachers lacked an adequate supply of books and materials. At times
    district business operations were managed by staff who had been
    promoted because of tenure in the district, rather than their
    particular qualifications. Administrative systems were outdated and
    cumbersome, and new expertise was needed to bring them up to speed. In
    some of the districts there was the perception--and too often the
    reality--that direct political influence by school board members and
    other elected officials affected decisions such as hiring, promotions
    and assignments, and contracts for supplies or services. Finally,
    school level staff viewed the central office as unresponsive,
    bureaucratic, and micromanaging, rather than working to find real
    solutions.
    Three Key Contextual Factors That Affect Change

          1. The Uncertainty of Funding

        None of the case study districts were in desperate financial
    circumstances, but each of the districts faced budget pressures, in
    some years had to cut back spending, and had lost bond elections to
    raise funds for capital improvements.

          2. State Focus on Accountability

        Evolving State accountability systems with strong academic
    achievement goals helped focus local attention on student achievement.
    Thus, each of the three case study districts operated within a broader
    policy context that emphasized student academic achievement, concrete
    goals for improvement, and incentives and consequences for performance.

          3. Local Politics and Power Relations

        The process of decisionmaking in the case study districts was
    complex and had to accommodate many different interests. However, there
    were important differences from older, central city districts where
    interest group politics are more volatile and where the vast majority,
    of residents and the student body are from a single racial group.
                               iii. key findings
    The Need to Establish Preconditions for Reform
        The individual histories of these fasterimproving urban school
    districts suggest that political and organizational stability over a
    prolonged period and consensus on educational reform strategies are
    necessary prerequisites to meaningful change. Such a foundation
    includes:

         A new role for the school board whereby a new board
    majority (or other governing unit) focuses on policy level decisions
    that support improved student achievement rather than on the day-to-day
    operations of the district.
         A shared vision between the chief executive of the school
    district and the school board regarding the goals and strategies for
    reform.
         A capacity to diagnose instructional problems that the
    school system could solve.
         An ability to flesh out the leadership's vision for reform
    and sell it to city and district stakeholders.
         A focus on revamping district operations to serve and
    support the schools.
         A matching of new resources to support the vision for
    reform.
    What Were the Districts' Strategies for Success?
        The case study districts' approaches to reform shared the following
    elements in common:

         They focused on student achievement and specific
    achievement goals, on a set schedule with defined consequences; aligned
    curricula with State standards; and helped translate these standards
    into instructional practice.
         They created concrete accountability systems that went
    beyond what the states had established in order to hold district
    leadership and building-level staff personally responsible for
    producing results.
         They focused on the lowest-performing schools. Some
    districts provided additional resources and attempted to improve the
    stock of teachers and administrators at their lowest-performing
    schools.
         They adopted or developed districtwide curricula and
    instructional approaches rather than allowing each school to devise
    their own strategies.
         They supported these districtwide strategies at the
    central office through professional development and support for
    consistent implementation throughout the district.
         They drove reforms into the classroom by defining a role
    for the central office that entailed guiding, supporting, and improving
    instruction at the building level.
         They committed themselves to data-driven decisionmaking
    and instruction. They gave early and ongoing assessment data to
    teachers and principals as well as trained and supported them as the
    data were used to diagnose teacher and student weaknesses and make
    improvements.
         They started their reforms at the elementary grade levels
    instead of trying to fix everything at once.
         They provided intensive instruction in reading and math to
    middle and high school students, even if it came at the expense of
    other subjects.
    How Did the Comparison Districts Fare in Their Efforts?
        While the comparison districts claimed to be doing similar things,
    there were several important differences that prevented them from
    achieving similar gains:

         They lacked a clear consensus among key stakeholders about
    district priorities or an overall strategy for reform.
         They lacked specific, clear standards, achievement goals,
    timelines and consequences.
         The district's central office took little or no
    responsibility for improving instruction or creating a cohesive
    instructional strategy throughout the district.
         The policies and practices of the central office were not
    strongly connected to intended changes in teaching and learning in the
    classrooms.
         The districts gave schools multiple and conflicting
    curricula and instructional expectations, which they were left to
    decipher on their own.
    What Were the Trends in Academic Achievement?
         The academic achievement data collected as part of this
    study suggest that the districts in this study had indeed made progress
    in academic achievement and that this progress had begun to reduce
    racial disparities in student performance on standardized tests.
    Progress in each of the case study districts, moreover, generally
    outpaced statewide gains.
         This was particularly the case for the low end of the
    achievement distribution. The patterns of change and the magnitude of
    changes do not suggest that they were driven by small numbers of
    schools or students or were the sole result of State ``effects.''
         Progress was greatest at the elementary school level, and
    there was evidence of some improvement in achievement trends at the
    middle school level. However, these school districts are not yet
    generally making progress on overall achievement and racial differences
    in high schools.
                        iv. implications for next steps
        In many ways, these findings represent good practices for any type
    of organization: set priorities and specific goals; identify
    appropriate roles for parts of the organization; select or develop the
    techniques needed to move toward the goals given the local context,
    staff, and student body; collect and use information to track progress,
    identify needed refinements and areas of special needs; and stay on
    course long enough for the effort to pay off. There are few surprises
    here, just hard work.
        But taking these common-sensical steps in the complex world of
    urban school districts with many diverse stakeholders, frequent
    leadership changes, competing priorities, limited resources, and
    difficult-to-manage bureaucracies is not a straightforward process. A
    key contribution of this study, therefore, is to suggest some
    priorities for urban school districts and to provide concrete examples
    of how several urban school districts successfully, focused on student
    achievement and what they saw as necessary steps toward improvement.
        This study is exploratory in nature and is not designed to yield
    definitive conclusions regarding the factors that drove achievement in
    these particular districts. However, the evidence gathered in these
    districts does support a few tentative conclusions that further
    technical assistance and research efforts should endeavor to test.
    These hypotheses are interrelated but can be loosely categorized into
    several topic areas: the foundations for reform; instructional
    coherence; and data-driven decisionmaking. In particular, the evidence
    in this report suggests the following hypotheses regarding the role of
    the district in urban school reform.
    Building the Foundations for Reform
         The nature of the local political and public discourse
    about schools is important and can be changed. But first, school board,
    community leaders, and superintendents must agree that improved student
    achievement is their top priority.
         A sustained focus on enacting effective reforms is
    possible when a common vision is developed that is supported by a
    stable majority of the board, and when the school community and general
    public are engaged in providing feedback and support.
    Developing Instructional Coherence
         The central school district office can play a key role in
    setting district-wide goals, standards for learning, and instructional
    objectives; creating a consistency of instruction in every school; and
    supporting the improvement of instruction and the effective delivery of
    curricula throughout the district.
         Urban school districts face specific challenges. Providing
    a systematic, uniform, and clearly defined approach to elementary
    instruction may improve student learning and have an even larger
    positive effect on the disadvantaged and minority children served by
    these districts.
         Giving teachers extensive professional development to
    ensure the delivery of a specific curriculum may be more effective at
    improving instruction and raising student achievement than distributing
    professional development resources widely across schools or educational
    initiatives.
         Requiring, encouraging, or providing incentives for highly
    skilled administrators and teachers to transfer to low-performing
    schools may improve the stock of staff at those schools and help
    disadvantaged and minority children succeed.
    Data Driven Decision Making
         Teachers may be able to use achievement data as a tool to
    help them improve instructional practice, diagnose students' specific
    instructional needs, and increase student learning/achievement.
    However, teachers and principals need such data given to them at
    regular intervals from the start of the academic year, along with
    training in the use of these data to diagnose areas of weakness.
         Students may be assigned to classroom situations that are
    more beneficial to them if administrators carefully use assessment data
    in placement decisions to identify students with the potential to do
    more demanding work. This practice may also increase the odds that
    disadvantaged and minority students will be able to qualify for high-
    level classes.

        The experiences of these districts, and the perspectives of the
    leaders in these districts, suggest one final hypothesis: doing all of
    these things together can have a much larger impact on the performance
    of a district than doing any one of them alone. Indeed, unless a
    district tries to reform their system as a whole, trying any one of
    these approaches may be a wasted effort.
        In the end, the findings in this study underscore the importance of
    the district as a unit of analysis for research and as a level of
    intervention for reform. It is important next to refine the hypotheses
    regarding promising practices at the district level and establish a
    strong empirical basis for understanding the relationship between these
    educational improvement strategies and changes in teaching, learning,
    and student achievement in large urban school systems. The findings
    also underscore the importance in testing these strategies in diverse
    settings as possible, so as to establish their applicability to the
    systems where reform is most needed.

        The Chairman. Wanda Gaddis, welcome.

    STATEMENT OF WANDA GADDIS, PARENT, WASHINGTON, DC, ON BEHALF OF
                            THE NATIONAL PTA

        Ms. Gaddis. Good morning, Chairman Kennedy and members of
    the committee.
        My name is Wanda Gaddis. I am a parent, and my daughter
    Ashley is a first-grader at Bruce-Monroe Elementary School in
    the District of Columbia.
        I am here today representing National PTA. Parents are key
    players in the education debate, so I thank you for the
    opportunity to express my views.
        First, I would like to commend you, Mr. Chairman, as well
    as Senator Reed and other members of this committee, for your
    dedication to school improvement and parent involvement. You
    led the way to strengthening the parent involvement provisions
    in the law, and we thank you for your commitment.
        PTA members across the country celebrated because they felt
    Congress sent a signal that parent involvement is an important
    reform tool.
        I also want to thank you for your efforts to secure a
    sustained and long-term commitment to increased Federal funding
    for education. Your work is critical to ensure that all
    children have access to excellent public schools, and we pledge
    to continue working with you on these issues.
        My statement can be summarized with three simple facts--
    effectively involving parents and families in the education of
    their children has greater potential impact than almost any
    other education reform. Excellent schools share common elements
    which include qualified teachers, a challenging curriculum,
    small class sizes, up-to-date materials and equipment,
    appropriate education support programs, strong leadership, and
    meaningful parent involvement. The components of effective
    schools cost money, and low-achieving schools do not have
    adequate resources to implement the strategies they need.
        If you ask parents what they want in education, they will
    respond that they want every school to be an excellent school.
    Parents want all children to have a high-quality education.
    They want to see funding disparities among schools and programs
    eliminated. Parents want qualified teachers, small classes, and
    safe and modern schools for their children. They also want
    their children to have up-to-date textbooks and technology, and
    before- and after-school learning opportunities in their
    schools.
        Title I parents want parent involvement provisions
    implemented to help students achieve. So far, most of the
    attention has been on parental choice, but choice is not
    parental involvement. Parents want to keep their children in
    their own neighborhoods so they can be part of their school
    communities. Parents want to be partners with their schools in
    their children's education. Most of all, they want a place at
    the decisionmaking table.
        Let me tell you about how the Telling Stories Project
    brought me to the education table with my daughter Ashley. The
    Telling Stories Project is based on the belief that all
    parents, regardless of their background, can promote literacy
    at home, in the school, and in the community.
        The project connects parents, educators, and communities.
    Through the Telling Stories Project, parents like myself work
    collaboratively with other parents from different backgrounds
    to create a school environment that values all cultures and
    family traditions, play more active roles in their children's
    classrooms and in the decisionmaking process of the school.
        Like many other models of successful parents involvement,
    Telling Stories began with relationship-building. National PTA
    believes that all schools can have this type of effective
    parent involvement if States and schools make it a priority.
    National PTA believes that Congress and the Department of
    Education can help create strong partnerships and recommend
    that parent involvement policies be evaluated as part of a
    school's overall measures of success; more technical assistance
    be provided to show schools how to set up effective parent
    involvement practices; professional development programs to
    train teachers in how to build relationships with parents.
        Increasing financial resources must be a priority at the
    Federal level, too. In fact, we believe that the single biggest
    problems that States and schools face in implementing Title I
    is a lack of funding. Title I only fully serves about one-third
    of all children who are eligible. We cannot expect 100 percent
    results when we only invest 35 percent.
        Schools already face enormous challenges in educating
    children. The new law creates additional demands on States and
    schools, and many States are cutting their education budgets.
        The reality is that States and local communities cannot do
    it alone. They need help from the Federal Government. National
    PTA believes that Congress should provide appropriations to
    meet the goals of ESEA, particularly in economically
    disadvantaged areas, and to prepare the future work force to
    meet the Nation's economic and defense needs.
        Public education advocates are often criticized when they
    ask for more money. However, not one Federal education program
    has ever been funded to the level that would provide services
    to all who are eligible. Is money the only solution to problems
    in education? No. But we cannot assure that all teachers are
    highly-qualified, or implement parent involvement strategies as
    required in Title I, not to mention reduce class size, build
    and repair school facilities, provide needed support services,
    or purchase equipment and materials for free.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present our views today. I
    will be happy to answer any questions you have.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Gaddis follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Wanda Gaddis, Parent, Washington, DC, on Behalf
                              of the National PTA
        Good morning Chairman. Kennedy, and members of the Committee. My
    name is Wanda Gaddis. I am a parent, and my daughter, Ashley, is a
    first-grader at Bruce-Monroe Elementary School in the District of
    Columbia. I am here today representing National PTA, the country's
    largest child advocacy organization, which has 6.2 million members.
    Parents are key stakeholders in the education debate, so I thank you
    for the opportunity to express National PTA's perspective on
    implementing Title I, with our particular comments on what parents
    believe will help their children achieve high standards.
        First, I would like to commend you, Mr. Chairman, as well as
    Senator Reed and other members of this committee, for your commitment
    to school improvement and to parent involvement. You led the way to
    strengthening the parent involvement provisions in the current law, and
    we thank you for the commitment you demonstrated on this issue
    throughout reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education
    Act (ESEA). PTA members across the country celebrated the improved
    parent involvement provisions because they felt Congress sent a signal
    to states and school districts that parent involvement is an important
    reform tool.
        I also want to thank you for your efforts to secure a sustained and
    long-term commitment to increased Federal funding for education. Your
    efforts are critical to our success in assuring that all children have
    access to excellent public schools, and we pledge to continue working
    with you and your staff on these issues.
        Before going further, Mr. Chairman, I would also like to say that
    my references to the term parent should be interpreted broadly to
    include all the adults who play an important role in a child's family
    life, since grandparents, aunts, uncles, stepparents, and guardians
    often have primary responsibility for a child's care and education.
        From the perspective of parents, whose job it is to help children
    learn outside the classroom, and from the viewpoint of families who
    have limited resources, I am here today to support Title I and to
    discuss successful implementation strategies.
        Title I is the centerpiece of Federal involvement in elementary and
    secondary education, and ever since it was created in 1965, the program
    has been targeting Federal dollars to the schools and communities most
    in need of assistance to help low-achieving students succeed
    academically.
        Title I has evolved over the years, with changes made in parent
    involvement strategies, the variety of services provided, the scope of
    coverage within schools, and other aspects related to emerging
    instructional beliefs and educational practices, but at its core, the
    program continues to provide basic academic skills to students who need
    additional help in achieving the state's high academic standards. In
    recent reauthorizations, including in the No Child Left Behind Act
    (NCLBA), the changes in Title I focused on coordinating programs,
    expanding schoolwide projects, improving student assessments, and
    increasing accountability. Fundamental to the success of Title I, the
    program remains extremely flexible so that states and school districts
    can decide how their funds are spent to meet local needs.
        The total Federal appropriation for Title I is now over $12
    billion, and its programs touch nearly every school district in the
    country. More than 11 million children receive Title I services. Funds
    are used to develop special curricula that focus on the reading or math
    skills low-achieving students must master, to hire and train teachers
    who specialize in teaching children with special educational needs, or
    to extend the school day for additional instruction.
        Since Title I was enacted, numerous evaluations of the program have
    demonstrated its effectiveness. First of all, research shows that
    Federal dollars are far more targeted to disadvantaged children than
    State funds. On average, for every $1.00 of State funds school
    districts receive for each low-income student, they receive $4.73 in
    additional Federal funding per poor student.
        In addition, Title I funds have helped close the achievement gap
    between disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged children and given states
    and school districts money to implement reforms they would not
    otherwise have been able to afford. According to National Assessment of
    Educational Progress (NAEP) scores, the achievement gap between white
    and minority children is decreasing. Between the early 1970's and 1992,
    the difference in scores for white and black 9-year-olds narrowed by 23
    percent in reading and math. Without Title I, these gaps would likely
    have been greater. More recent NAEP scores show improvements in reading
    for students in grades 4, 8, and 12, and Scholastic Assessment Test
    (SAT) math scores are at a 27-year high level.
        Studies have also been conducted on the programmatic aspects of
    Title I, and education researchers have identified certain common
    elements in effective Title I schools. For example, effective schools
    share clear goals for high academic achievement. They use curricula and
    materials that are linked to strict academic standards, the
    compensatory instruction is well-coordinated with the regular course of
    studies, they have added opportunities for learning in school-based
    before and after-school activities, they place emphasis on quality
    professional development for teachers, and they have meaningful parent
    involvement. National PTA supports the idea that effective schools
    share these and other common criteria. Attached to this statement is
    our list of the components of an effective school.
        If you ask what parents want to,reform education, they will respond
    that they want every school to be an effective school. Parents believe
    it is vital to America's future well-being that all children have
    equitable access to a high-quality educational opportunity. Parents
    want the tremendous funding disparities among schools and programs,
    which lead to tremendous disparities in achievement, eliminated.
        For purposes of this statement, l will divide our recommendations
    into two major categories: effectively implementing the parent
    involvement provisions in ESEA and increasing the Federal investment in
    education.
        Over 30 years of research have demonstrated the impact parent
    involvement can have on student achievement, proving beyond dispute the
    positive connection between parent involvement and student success.
    Effectively engaging parents and families in the education of their
    children has greater potential impact than almost any other education
    reform. The evidence is convincing, but the challenge comes in
    transforming knowledge into practice, and practice into results.
        While National PTA strongly supported the efforts during ESEA
    reauthorization to increase student achievement and strengthen
    accountability, we do not like, the overemphasis in the law on testing
    as the primary measure of school or student success. As mentioned,
    National PTA sees a number of other ways to evaluate success, and we
    believe the strengthened parent involvement provisions in NCLBA offer
    critical accountability tools that are being overlooked in
    implementation of the law. National PTA has recommended to the
    Department of Education that they issue regulation or guidance on
    parent involvement to ensure that states and school districts are aware
    of the new provisions and understand what they need to do to make them
    work.
        Instead, most of the attention has been on parental choice,
    particularly the required choice provisions in Title I. Choice,
    however, is NOT parental involvement. In fact, recent articles about
    the choice options in NCLBA indicate that parents are choosing to keep
    their children in their own schools. They do not want to send their
    children to other schools. They want to improve their neighborhood
    schools so they can be a part of their school communities.
        Parents want their children to have qualified teachers. They want
    their children to be in classes that are not overcrowded. They want
    school buildings that are safe from hazards and modernized for today's
    technology. They want their children to have up-to-date textbooks, and
    instructional materials to supplement their instruction. They want
    school-based before- and after-school learning opportunities for their
    children.
        In brief, parents want what the definition of parent involvement
    the NCLBA promises. They want information about their children's
    education. They want training in ways they can be helpful to all
    students. Parents want to be partners in their children's education.
    Most of all, they want a place at the decisionmaking table.
        Let me tell you about how the Tellin' Stories Project brought me to
    the table with my daughter, Ashley. This project is based on the belief
    that all parentsregardless of their nationality, cultural background,
    native language and level of formal education-have the knowledge and
    experience to create their own literature and to serve as sources of
    literacy at home, in the school and in the community.
        Through participation in a series of workshops, parents write and
    share their stories with their children and other parents. These
    stories become a part of the life of the school and the community as
    they` document the struggles and joys of the past and create a vision
    of the future.
        The project provides a much needed bridge that connects parents,
    educators and communities. Through the Tellin' Stories Project,
    parents:

         Work collaboratively with other parents from different
    linguistic,; cultural, ethnic and racial backgrounds;
         Create a school environment that values all cultures and
    family traditions;
         Play more active and meaningful roles in their children's
    classrooms and in the decisionmaking process of the school; and
         Help develop the project as a model, which may be used in
    other communities.

        Our parents get involved with our project so they can be more
    involved in the schools their children attend. Like many other models
    of successful parent involvement, Tellin' Stories begins with
    relationship building. When strong relationships can connect parents to
    the school, solutions to other problems can be developed. When regular
    communications can cover issues such as teacher quality, safety,
    absenteeism, parents can help coordinate their advocacy efforts.
        National PTA believes all schools can have this type of effective
    parent involvement if it is made a priority at the State and local
    levels. National PTA believes Congress and the Department of Education
    can help create strong partnerships, and recommends that:

         A school's parent involvement policies should be evaluated
    along with its progress in raising student achievement, its offering of
    professional development opportunities, and the other requirements of
    the law. If parent involvement is part on a school's overall
    assessment, it will be likely more effective, and the increased parent
    involvement will have a beneficial impact on student achievement and
    other school improvements.
         There needs to be increased technical assistance from the
    Federal to State level and from the State to districts and local
    schools on how to institute effective parent involvement research and
    practices. This could be accomplished in part through the use of
    existing, and new, parent resource centers, which could serve as
    clearinghouses of information helpful to states and schools.
         An increased emphasis on information sharing and
    dissemination is needed, through the Federal Government to the states
    and through the states to local districts. As mentioned earlier, there
    are thousands of successful schools across the country and thousands
    more that could benefit by replicating model programs of what is
    working.
         Title I professional development activities must include
    training on how to foster relationships with parents and encourage
    parent involvement.

        The parent involvement provisions in Title I and other parts of
    ESEA provide a sensible outline for schools to develop stronger
    relationships between parents and educators. When parent involvement is
    a comprehensive, well-planned partnership, student achievement will
    increase. However, too often, the parent involvement provisions in
    Title I are not adequately implemented. That is why National PTA
    believes the Department of Education and Congress need to make this
    issue a priority at the State and local levels. ESEA helps educators
    and parents build partnerships, but these provisions are only as
    effective as the commitment and resources to implement them. National
    PTA continues to maintain that if ESEA is to help improve student
    achievement, and parent involvement is a leading indicator of success,
    then creating strong partnerships between the home and the school must
    be a priority for the Department of Education and the states.
        Increasing resources must be a priority at the Federal level too.
    In fact, the biggest problem states and schools face in adequately
    implementing Title I is lack, of funding. The Congressional Research
    Service estimates that the program only fully serves about one third of
    all children who are eligible'. We cannot expect 100 percent results
    when we only invest 35 percent.
        Schools are under tremendous pressure to prepare students for jobs
    of the future, but they face enormous challenges in carrying out this
    mission. Schools are contending with record high student enrollments,
    an increased percentage of students with special needs, including
    limited-English proficiency (LEP) a projected teacher shortage, rapidly
    changing education technology demands; and a staggering need for school
    construction and modernization. 1n addition, states and schools must
    comply with new demands in the law and the recent economic downturn
    that has created deficits in State budgets that are in many cases being
    paid for with cuts to education:
        Consider, these facts:

         This year, as a result of the ``Baby Boom Echo''
    population growth, elementary and secondary schools will enroll 53.2
    million students, nearly half a million more than last year. New
    enrollments will continue to grow for the next 7 years, with more than
    54 million students expected in 2008!
         The Department of Education has reported that a large
    number of teachers are nearing retirement, which together with the
    unprecedented enrollments, is fueling a teacher shortage that will
    require hiring an estimated 2.2 million teachers over the next 10
    years.
         The U.S. General Accounting Office estimates the cost of
    simply repairing schools to bring them up to minimal health and safety
    codes would cost $112 billion. In addition, an estimated $73 billion is
    needed to accommodate the rising enrollments, and billions more are
    needed to bring schools up to date with 21st century technology needs.

        The reality is, while states and local communities have always had
    primary responsibility for creating excellent schools and are
    contributing all they can to their schools, they simply cannot do it
    alone. They need help from the Federal Government, which has as one of
    its primary roles to ensure access and equal opportunity to high
    quality education for all children. National PTA believes the Federal
    Government should provide budgetary appropriations that are adequate to
    meet these goals, particularly in economically disadvantaged areas, and
    to prepare the future workforce to meet the nation's economic and
    defense needs.
        Public education advocates are often criticized when they ask for
    more money. The reality is, however, that not one Federal education
    program has ever been funded to the level that would provide services
    to all who are eligible. Further, in a poll conducted for the Committee
    for Education Funding, the nation's largest education coalition, 84
    percent of voters said it is important that Federal funding for
    education, from Kindergarten through college, receive a substantial
    increase this year even if it means a larger Federal budget deficit.
        The overall needs for elementary and secondary education are
    staggering, but even a quick glance at Title I shows the dramatic
    funding needs:
         The program only fully serves about one-third of those who
    are eligible. To provide services to all would cost a total of $24
    billion.
         Up to 20 percent of the funds from Title I may be taken
    from basic services to pay for supplemental services and transportation
    costs associated with public school choice.
         The new assessments, accountability, and teacher quality
    requirements will cost money to implement, and there are insufficient
    funds to cover the costs.

        Is money the only solution to problems in education? No, but we
    cannot assure that all teachers are highly qualified or implement
    parent involvement strategies as required in Title I, not to mention
    reduce class size, build and repair school facilities, provide needed
    support services, or purchase equipment and materials for free.
        National PTA believes that public education provides a common
    experience for building and maintaining a basic commitment to the
    values of a democratic--system of government. A strong public education
    system is vital to our nation's well-being, and the Federal Government
    must be an active participant in strengthening this system. The
    Congress and the White House must continue to work together to
    strengthen America's system of public education so that effective
    schools provide education excellence for all children to achieve high
    standards, become responsible citizens, and attain economic self-
    sufficiency.
        Thank you for this opportunity to present our views today. I will
    be happy to answer any questions you may have.

        The Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony and
    for all the testimony.
        What we were hoping to hear today is the reaction from
    those who are out in the field about the implementation of the
    No Child Left Behind Act, and I think we have received some
    very useful and important information on that particular
    challenge, and I am grateful.
        I would like to start with Dr. Wheelan if I could. We saw
    as recently as today in The Washington Post the headline, ``Top
    Teachers Rare in Poor Schools,'' and there is another story as
    well with regard to reading issues and lack of funding. But I
    would like to just focus on ``Top Teachers Rare in Poor
    Schools.'' It talks about ``Twenty percent of teachers in high-
    poverty schools left teaching and moved to other schools in
    1999 compared to 12 percent in low-poverty schools.''
        ``Many education experts say that teachers must be paid
    more and supported by good administrators.''
        The story goes on:

        ``Bruce Fuller, professor of education and public policy at the
    University of California: `But when it comes to professionalizing the
    teaching force, Mr. Bush has simply told the States that they must
    magically figure out a way to upgrade teacher quality, with no new
    resources.' ''

        We also have the report that has come out from the
    Southeast Center for Teaching, which shows that ``Kids with
    uncertified teachers have 20 percent less academic growth.'' We
    have those studies here.
        I do not think it surprises the members of our committee,
    when we passed the No Child Left Behind Act, about the
    importance, among others, of having well-qualified teachers.
        These studies underscore the importance of meeting the goal
    set out to ensure a highly-qualified teacher in every
    classroom. You have stated that you plan to do all that you can
    to meet the goal, including the professional development and
    mentoring programs. Can you elaborate on how you are doing
    this? Do you have the resources to do it? What additional help
    and assistance do you need?
        What can you tell us about your programs in your State, the
    kind of success that they are having, and what needs to be done
    to really make a difference?
        Ms. Wheelan. The Governor has put in place a task force to
    study teacher quality that is comprised of members of the
    higher education community as well as the business community
    and people from K-12 as well, so that there is a dialogue to
    match what is needed in the classroom versus what the
    universities are teaching in the classroom. While that may seem
    kind of common sensical, it has never happened before. We have
    had our higher education institutions teaching what they
    thought teachers needed to be able to do in classrooms, and in
    some cases had never visited a classroom, other than during
    student teaching.
        One thing that I think has happened is that teaching
    started out as a women's profession, and women did not need a
    lot of money because they were not the sole source of their
    household, so we have never caught up with the kind of dollars
    that we put into other professionals. Given the infusion of the
    information technology arena and all the other jobs that are so
    much better-paid, we are losing a lot of quality people to
    other fields.
        Having said that, I think what we are recognizing is that
    different school divisions, because of the populations of their
    children, do have different needs, and our higher education
    teacher training programs are recognizing that and now trying
    to provide the kind of--if you are going to a rural area, these
    might be your challenges; if you are going to a high-income
    area, these may be your challenges; if you are going to a
    district that has a large English-as-a-second-language
    population; recognizing also that working for ``seasoned''
    teachers--I like that word better than ``old''--for seasoned
    teachers to be matched with new teachers is extremely
    important, and that is not something that has been done
    regularly. So we are in the process of working with seasoned
    teachers to help them remember what it was like to be new
    teachers and what they need to do to help the new teachers.
    Probably the most frightening thing for a new teacher is that
    first day of class, when we have had all this education and
    training, but now it is me by myself. To have a seasoned
    teacher even just stop by during the day and say, ``How are you
    doing?'' and so on is very important. So we have formalized
    programs that are doing that.
        We also have a cadre of retired teachers that we are
    bringing back to mentor some of the new teachers--but again,
    there are dollars involved when people are no longer on the
    payroll to provide incentive to bring them back. So additional
    dollars are needed for those kinds of mentoring programs as
    well as to recruit teachers into some areas that they may not
    consider working in, for example. Our small and rural
    communities are having a devilish time getting people to move
    to those communities because there is nothing else there, but
    counties like Fairfax County right outside Washington, DC are
    having just as much difficulty, because again, the challenges
    of working with students who have many disabilities and speak
    other languages is a challenge to them, and when you have 25
    children in a class, all with different needs, it is very
    tough.
        The Chairman. In one of the interesting programs that I saw
    when I visited North Carolina, they were actually recruiting
    people in these rural areas and training them. So, rather than
    trying to train teachers and sending them there, they were
    identifying people who were living there and training them.
        Ms. Wheelan. There are a lot of ``grow your own'' programs.
    I was out in Wythe County, for example, the other day during a
    convocation, and of the 30 new teachers, 18 of them graduated
    from the local high school. So there is a lot of that going on.
        The Chairman. Yes, good.
        In terms of having well-qualified teachers in the
    classrooms in Virginia, have you set some markers or some goals
    as to when Virginia is going to be able to do that?
        Ms. Wheelan. By 2005-2006, because that is what the law
    says.
        [Laughter.]
        The Chairman. That is what the law says, but I was just
    trying to get a little feel for that.
        Ms. Wheelan. I think some divisions are farther along in
    being able to do that, but across the Commonwealth, it is going
    to take us that long.
        The Chairman. Good, and we want to try to help you do it.
        Let me ask you about the PASS program and how that is
    working. We have seen similar kinds of efforts made where
    States have developed teams that have the technical information
    and skills as well as the political skills to work within
    schools to help them improve.
        Tell me about your PASS program.
        Ms. Wheelan. There is an excitement across the Commonwealth
    in both the academic community and the local community.
    Businesses are stepping up to the plate and offering their
    employees to be able to come in to do some mentoring and
    tutoring, or to do some painting, or to do some planting of
    plants, whatever it is that brightens up the learning
    environment and helps the children.
        The faith-based community is stepping up to the plate in
    after-school and before-school and weekend programs to provide
    tutoring and mentoring for those students.
        The academic teams that are going in are really exciting,
    because for once, we have educational institutions talking to
    each other from across the State. We have matched teachers and
    principals from Fairfax and Arlington and Loudon Counties here
    in northern Virginia with those in the city of Richmond, for
    example, because they have similar populations. Sometimes, it
    is just a matter of saying, ``You know, they are asking you
    these questions on the test, but you are not teaching this in
    your curriculum; you have not lined up your curriculum.'' To
    hear that from a colleague is very different than the principal
    coming in and saying, ``You are not doing your job.'' So it is
    going very, very well. Of course, we have only been into it for
    3 weeks in the school year, but just building the excitement,
    and every time we have a gathering of folks, people are signing
    on more and more to get involved.
        The Chairman. Good.
        Let me ask Dr. Moloney, but also Dr. Wheelan and others,
    about the supplemental services. How have you begun to plan for
    the supplemental services, and how are we going to ensure that
    they are high-quality? I would be interested in other
    reactions, too.
        Dr. Moloney.
        Mr. Moloney. I think the newness of the opportunities has
    obviously created some complexity. In the education industry,
    we are not famous for our rapid flanking movements, and a lot
    of districts are struggling with this.
        We have a shortage of providers, because there has not been
    support for these kinds of services in law, certainly Federal
    law, in the past. Some districts are doing quite well. They
    have been imaginative. We have done our best to facilitate at
    the State level.
        I would not for a minute say that the Congress should have
    had a longer time line, because frankly, I do not think you
    would have the level of attention to this if the time line had
    not commenced with this school year.
        So better than we wrestle with these teething problems now.
    I can assure you that as time goes by, the performance will be
    much more to your liking. It is an exciting opportunity.
        The Chairman. I will hear from others--Dr. Wheelan and then
    Dr. Casserly.
        Ms. Wheelan. In the Commonwealth, the Board of Education
    has developed a list of the services that are needed based on
    the law, and we have put out a group of RFPs, and we have
    gotten responses from all across the country--we are very glad
    about that--and by the end of the month, we should have a list
    of those services.
        It becomes extremely important in the city of Petersburg,
    which has 10 schools, none of which is accredited, so there is
    no place for those children to go within the city of
    Petersburg. The surrounding school divisions of Chesterfield
    and Hanover are already filled to capacity, so there are not
    many seats available for them. So those supplemental services
    will become very important.
        The Chairman. Dr. Casserly.
        Mr. Casserly. This is kind of a mixed picture in terms of
    the implementation. Virginia and Colorado have been two of the
    States that have provided approved supplemental service
    provider lists to the local level, way ahead of many other
    States. We are discovering that many of our cities, however,
    have not received those lists, so many have gone about the
    process of trying to implement supplemental services on their
    own.
        In some cases where the cities do have their lists--places
    like San Diego, for instance; San Diego is about the process of
    implementing supplemental services after school, including the
    San Diego school district proper, but we are finding that the
    three other service providers in the district have already
    indicated to the school system that they are at capacity and
    cannot take any more kids.
        So we are struggling a little bit with this, and the
    process is not moving quite as fast as we had initially hoped,
    but I agree with Bill Moloney that over time, this will work
    out, and the good will of the people at the State and the local
    level will get this thing implemented. But it is a little
    slower on the uptake than we had originally expected.
        The Chairman. Mr. Casserly, you talked about the progress
    that is being made in the 24 cities you surveyed. What are the
    common needs of the cities, and what are your recommendations,
    and what has been the budget impact in terms of the
    implementation of these requirements?
        Mr. Casserly. The initial challenges that we have really
    deal with supplemental service provisions, as I indicated, and
    with the choice provisions. We certainly, over the long term,
    are running into difficulties where we are going to need
    technical assistance in how to boost our overall student
    achievement, which is the overall goal of this legislation, and
    that is going to take both expertise from the State level and
    funding from the Federal level.
        The choice provision has been particularly difficult to
    implement. We are running into cases in some cities, as I
    indicated in my initial statement, where cities simply do not
    have the capacity because so many of the schools are
    overcrowded already, and we haven't been able to place as many
    kids as we would like.
        We have discovered, however, from information collection
    that we have been doing, that tens of thousands, in some cases
    100,000 or more parents in some of the cities, have been
    notified that there are choice options, but the number of open
    seats is just not what we would have initially wanted. But I
    expect that over time, we are going to make this situation
    better.
        One other thing that has been helpful for us is that in
    cities that were able to mesh their open enrollment programs
    with the choice provisions have had an easier time implementing
    choice. But most of the cities were not able to get those two
    processes to jibe because they had not been notified yet as to
    which schools in the spring were going to be in school
    improvement.
        I think that in the outyears, what you will see is school
    districts meshing their open enrollment plans with this choice
    provision in ways that are going to give parents even greater
    options.
        The Chairman. Just a final two questions. What do you hear
    from your cities in terms of the pressure that they have in
    terms of resources and the cutbacks from the State? Is that
    having an impact in terms of the implementation of No Child
    Left Behind?
        Mr. Casserly. We are under extraordinary pressure. I cannot
    think of another institution, public or private that is under
    as much pressure as we are to improve our overall performance.
    But one of the things that has added to that pressure is the
    budgetary cutbacks that we have experienced over the last year
    or so. I think that on average, our cities have taken budget
    cuts of anywhere between 10 and 15 percent of their operating
    budgets. The Federal Government was really very, very helpful
    in stepping up to the plate this last appropriations cycle, but
    we are going to need those kinds of increases repeated in the
    next couple of years in order to get this law implemented
    successfully, because the cutbacks have been enormous in these
    cities.
        The Chairman. Finally, Wanda, I want to ask you about your
    involvement in the school and in your child's education. Do you
    find that with the parents that you are talking to now, there
    is a greater effort to involve the parents more? Do you find
    that that is taking place now in your school and local school
    district?
        Ms. Gaddis. Yes. The parents are coming out now, and they
    are getting involved in the school. A lot of the parents at my
    daughter's school, which is Bruce-Monroe, chose to stay there
    and make our school better. We had a few who left, but we feel
    as though we can get our school changed if we stay there and
    work and bring out more friends.
        What we do through the Telling Stories Project is try to
    bring in more parents every day. This morning, we had about 40
    parents in a meeting this morning when I left. So they are
    coming out and being more involved.
        The Chairman. That is certainly the hope, that we are going
    to provide a quality education for all children so they do not
    have to move, and that is certainly something that is going to
    be delayed if we are not providing the resources to be able to
    make those programs work.
        Ms. Wheelan. Senator Kennedy, one of the challenges we
    have, though, is that many of our parents are illiterate, or
    are themselves not high school graduates, and it makes it very
    difficult for them to provide assistance to their own children
    with their homework. So we have also built a literacy component
    into the PASS program so that parents can learn along with
    their children.
        The Chairman. That is very worthwhile, and we have heard of
    the great successes they have had in a number of communities.
    So it is very, very valuable and very worthwhile and to be
    commended.
        Senator Jeffords?
        Senator Jeffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Wheelan, you mentioned in your testimony that
    more often than not, resources are pulled from other
    instructional programs to fund IDEA requirements. Do you have
    an estimate of the dollar amount that has been diverted to IDEA
    from other K through 12 programs within the last year or so?
        Ms. Wheelan. I do not know the specific dollar amount, but
    I can certainly provide that to you once I get back to the
    office.
        Senator Jeffords. I would appreciate that very much.
        Ms. Wheelan. Certainly.
        [Information follows:]

        [Information was not available at press time, however,
    information is maintained in the committee files.]

        Senator Jeffords. What specific K through 12 initiative are
    being shortchanged because of the shifting of dollars into
    IDEA?
        Ms. Wheelan. I would have to let you know, because it
    depends on where they are taking the money from. I do not know
    that any is being shortchanged. I think they are having to find
    other sources of funding for them from local community grants.
    Many of our foundations are having to kick in dollars to
    supplement some of those programs, and we are trying not to let
    them fall through the tracks just because we do not have the
    dollars.
        Senator Jeffords. Can any of the other panelists help me
    out with information in that regard?
        Mr. Moloney. I might offer a thought that would be useful.
    The structure of ESEA, which is 37 years old--it has been
    adapted through various reauthorizations--something that has
    been quite striking in our circumstances and I think in other
    States is that we are in a new era of standards-based
    education, with a premium on rigorous assessment and strong
    accountability. Of necessity, we have had to adapt our uses of
    money to move in a direction of results as the primary test.
        So we make no apology for that. We do not think we are
    shortchanging old programs. Very frankly, some of the old
    programs--this happens in any institution--reflect priorities
    that are no longer as active as they once were. So the
    reallocation of moneys within our Federal programs, within our
    State moneys, is exactly what every school district in our
    State is doing. It is an appropriate response to the
    circumstance--put the resources where they are needed and have
    the courage occasionally to say to some old programs and even
    people still attached to them that we cannot do that anymore or
    that this has not worked as well as we had hoped.
        So I think this is an inevitable process.
        Senator Jeffords. Mr. Casserly.
        Mr. Casserly. I do not have any firm figures for you. I do
    know that our school systems have, as I indicated before, been
    under enormous financial strain because of the dollar cutbacks
    because of the economy. We have also been under enormous
    financial strain because of the tug-of-war over priorities and
    resources within the school system, which is one of the reasons
    why we have always been eager for Congress to pass mandatory
    funding legislation for IDEA to help us take the pressure off
    the budgets and also meet the other priorities that we have in
    the school systems.
        Senator Jeffords. Ms. Gaddis, do you have any comments?
        Ms. Gaddis. No.
        Senator Jeffords. My concern is that we do not recognize--
    or, the public does not seem to recognize, or at least the
    voters, that when we fund IDEA, that is a mandatory program
    which is court-required and that if the money does not come
    from where it should, that is, the Federal Government, then it
    has to come from somewhere. To me, that is the most critical
    problem we have, that we could reconcile if we just followed
    the intent of the law, and that is to fully fund IDEA. I do not
    think anybody is going to disagree with me on that, but I
    always want to raise that issue because there is so much
    misunderstanding, and the disabled children get the blame for
    things which are the Federal Government's responsibility.
        Does anyone have any comment?
        Ms. Wheelan. Senator Jeffords, I think one thing that
    happens is that we end up increasing class sizes in the general
    class, for lack of a better classification, in order to be able
    to provide smaller classes for children with disabilities. That
    is one of the shifts that occurs, and while I am not critical
    of that, that then puts a burden on the teacher with a larger
    class to still meet the educational needs of all the children
    who are in that particular classroom. That is the kind of
    impact that creating the services that are necessary for
    students with disabilities when you have to take resources from
    another pot to put into those.
        That is why I said I would not call it being
    ``shortchanged'' so much, but it does put a bigger burden on
    it. It means that local school divisions are having to make
    sure that they have facilities that are adequate, and in some
    school divisions, when there is only a handful of children with
    those disabilities and who rightfully should have the services
    that they need, it then creates some shift in the rest of the
    population. Those are the kinds of things that happen as a
    result of those dollars not being there.
        Senator Jeffords. Dr. Moloney.
        Mr. Moloney. I could support what Ms. Wheelan has said.
    Despite the very considerable popularity of the notion of
    reducing class size, we know that it is far and away the most
    expensive reform option open to us, and districts find that
    when they go in that direction, inevitably, they must drain
    other program areas to do that. Often, programmatic changes,
    rather than one or two less in a class, is the better way to
    go. We have seen this in special education. We have a very
    enviable record, I think, of lifting achievement for youngsters
    with disabilities, and we can directly trace that success to
    programmatic changes, not a staff or class size variable.
        Mr. Casserly. One other way to illustrate this tug-of-war
    that Mr. Moloney and Ms. Wheelan mentioned is that about 10 to
    12 percent of all the kids in the cities--and I think probably
    nationally, too--are students with disabilities, but at least
    in the urban areas, services for these children garner about 18
    to 20 percent of the budgets in these school systems, putting
    enormous pressure on other services in the school systems, and
    in an era where things are being cut back, it just puts an
    enormous strain on class sizes and teacher hiring across the
    board.
        Senator Jeffords. Some in the education community have
    expressed concern that due to the increased testing in the No
    Child Left Behind Act and identification of a high number of
    students not meeting adequate performance levels, we may see an
    increase in the number of students being placed in special
    education.
        Would each of you like to comment on that, please?
        Mr. Moloney. There is a lot of ambiguity in this issue. You
    are certainly right in what you are hearing, Senator Jeffords.
    We commonly hear folks say that, ``Well, because there is so
    much testing now, this, that, or the other thing will occur''.
    The fact is that the United States tests 2\1/2\ times as much
    as the average of 16 industrial nations, so beyond a shadow of
    a doubt, there is too much testing going on in this country.
        Inevitably, you have to go to the question of which test.
    Now, something that is playing out I think productively in
    Colorado is that with the great prominence of accountability
    testing which we began nearly 10 years ago and which you have
    ordained in H.R. 1, districts are making different kinds of
    decisions about their testing budgets. So what we are seeing is
    an actual decline in the amount of testing occurring and an
    actual decline in the amount of money being spent on testing in
    many, many districts. We regard this as a positive thing.
        Particularly in some of our larger districts, we had an
    extraordinary array of different testing systems. We have
    talked with folks in Denver, Colorado Springs, and elsewhere,
    and testing systems tend to outlive their usefulness but not go
    away. So it has compelled some rigorous decisionmaking, and I
    think that that is a positive thing.
        Mr. Casserly. I think this is a real danger that we have to
    be mindful of, that the testing requirements would result in
    the kinds of over-identification that you have indicated. On
    the other hand, there is an opportunity here to use tests more
    wisely and to use them in a way to make sure that as students,
    particularly in their reading skills, start to fall behind that
    we put interventions in place in order to boost their reading
    scores rather than placing them in a special education program.
        So I think there is a way of making the assessment system
    work in such a way to avoid exactly the fear that you are
    expressing. But I think it is worth being vigilant about this,
    because not everybody is going to use the assessments in this
    way.
        Ms. Wheelan. I have no data to support what you are
    suggesting, that the students are moving into special education
    classes instead because of the testing. We, like Colorado, have
    been in this business of assessment for at least 7 years, and I
    think that what we are doing instead is providing those
    additional services that students need before and after school
    to get them up-to-snuff.
        The Act requires assessment once a year, but we do have
    quarterly and every-6-week assessment in many of our programs,
    especially the PASS programs, so that we can keep regular
    progress rather than waiting until the end of the year, when it
    is too late to do anything to help with the child.
        So I am afraid we do not have that. We are currently
    testing in grades, 3, 5, 8, and high school, and the Act
    requires 3 on up, so we are going to have to get additional
    dollars to put in testing in 4th, 6th, and 7th grades. But I
    really do not know of any data in Virginia to support that
    those students are moved into special education. We even had a
    requirement that the State had put in before No Child Left
    Behind came along, that by the year 2003, this year, students
    had to pass an English and math test in the Commonwealth in
    order to get a high school diploma; otherwise, they will get a
    certificate of attendance. Schools have been working with
    parents for the last 3 years to make sure that we have
    alternatives to those exams to getting them to graduate,
    because the students in last year's and this year's classes did
    not have the benefit of 12 years of Standards of Learning,
    which is what we call our assessment system. Then, we recognize
    that they have not had all the instruction that perhaps they
    need to be successful. So we have put in other programs, but we
    have not put them in special education programs.
        The Chairman. Senator, we are running short on time.
        Senator Jeffords. Dr. Moloney wanted to comment.
        The Chairman. Yes, go ahead. I will go over and vote, and I
    will tell them you are coming.
        Senator Jeffords. Dr. Moloney.
        Mr. Moloney. Just one additional note. You are absolutely
    correct, Senator Jeffords. This issue of over-identification
    has been with us for a long time. I recall it very well as a
    superintendent in Pennsylvania nearly 20 years ago.
        What we found when we examined this was that the variable
    that led most commonly to over-identification was financial
    incentive. I think Massachusetts is experiencing something like
    this now. That certainly was against the intent of what the
    State legislature had wished.
        But very frankly, where there were financial incentives to
    identify more youngsters, invariably, more youngsters were
    identified. The State of Pennsylvania changed its legislation,
    and you saw a change there.
        I think--and I feel strongly on this--that one of the best
    things about our program in Colorado--and others have noticed
    that, and credit has to be given to the 1994 reauthorization--
    is that we have drawn youngsters with disabilities into the
    arena of accountability and assessment in a way that they have
    not been there before. This has been widely applauded by
    parents of children with disabilities to, as much as possible,
    make their experience the same as that of other youngsters. The
    youngsters have responded to that. They do not have a feeling
    that they are being allowed to slip off the radar screen.
        So there are complex dynamics in over-identification, and
    sometimes our intentions go in perverse directions.
        Senator Jeffords. I thank all of you. We have a vote on
    now, so I will thank you for this very helpful information in
    this crisis that we have. I look forward to working with you in
    the future, and I know that I speak for Senator Kennedy as
    well. So keep up the good work, and keep the good information
    coming to us.
        Thank you. The hearing is adjourned.

                              Additional Material

                                        Office of the Governor,
                          Commonwealth of Virginia, September 20, 2002.
    Hon. Edward M. Kennedy, Member,
    U.S. Senate,
    317 Russell Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC.

        Dear Senator Kennedy: This is in response to your questions asked
    of me last week when I testified before the Senate Committee on Health,
    Education, Labor and Pensions on the implementation of No Child Left
    Behind (NCLB). During my testimony I emphasized the need for Congress
    to fully fund the Federal share of the Individuals with Disabilities
    Education Act (IDEA). Lack of sufficient resources to comply with IDEA
    mandates has not only made it difficult for school divisions to meet
    the needs of children with special physical, emotional and
    developmental needs, but also lessened the resources available for
    instructional programs for all students. You asked for specific
    examples.
        Virginia currently receives $170 million in Part B funds for IDEA.
    Full Federal funding of IDEA, that is 40 percent of the excess cost of
    providing special education, would be approximately $453 million. At
    the State level, we would utilize the additional State set-aside money
    to enhance professional development opportunities for special education
    teachers including for example: additional stipends and tuition
    payments to assist teachers in becoming endorsed in special education;
    expanding our distance learning endorsement program; additional funds
    to our Training/Technical Assistance Centers; and in-service training
    for special education teachers. This, of course, would enable us to
    better meet the goals of IDEA as well as NCLB.
        Many local school divisions would also use some of the additional
    IDEA funds to enhance the quality of the special education programs
    they currently provide. In addition, from numerous conversations
    throughout the state, I know that all local superintendents stretch to
    find ways to fund IDEA requirements and they contend that some
    instructional needs for other students go unmet as a result. In
    general, examples of unmet needs would include hiring more teachers to
    provide lower class sizes; the need to provide greater compensation to
    attract high quality principals and teachers; facility needs; and the
    ability to serve more ``at risk'' students in prekindergarten programs.
        Attached are more specific examples from four school divisions of
    some priority needs they would pursue if they did not have to fund the
    Federal portion of IDEA. The four divisions provide a representative
    cross-section of rural and urban, large and small. It is assumed, of
    course, that IDEA's prohibition against ``supplanting'' would be
    clarified so as not to penalize local school divisions who have paid
    the Federal portion for decades.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide this information. I hope
    it is helpful. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any
    questions.
                Sincerely,
                                       Belle S. Wheelan, Ph.D.,
                                                Secretary of Education.
                                     ______

    Virginia Local School Divisions--September 19, 2002 Survey-Full Funding
                                    of IDEA
                          giles county public schools
    2,538 students; $179,900 annual increase in Federal funding if IDEA is
            fully funded.
        Should Giles County Schools receive full funding or increased
    funding for IDEA requirements, we would begin to reduce our annual debt
    service of $2,000,000 by redirecting those funds to:

         Reduce class sizes from the current level to 15:1 in at
    least Grades K-3. This could be accomplished by hiring teachers
    ($250,000). Also, reduce class sizes from the current level to at least
    20:1 in Grades 4-7 ($450,000).
         Improve educational opportunities for our high school
    students by employing additional teachers to provide higher level math,
    science and technology courses, along with developing on-line courses
    for students to receive instruction in a non-traditional manner to
    accommodate those students who are unable to attend a regular daytime
    class; ($350,000).
         Increase our opportunities for career and technical
    training by employing career specialists, teachers, on-the-job training
    worksite trainers and incentive funds for students to participate in
    such programs ($250,000).
         Provide additional funds to our teachers for instructional
    supplies at a rate of $50 per child ($125,000)
                       greensville county public schools
    2,766 students; $76,100 annual increase in Federal funding if IDEA is
            fully funded.
        With $76,000, Greensville would hire an additional teacher for
    kindergarten, lowering the pupil teacher ratio from 20:1 to 18:1 and
    also hire two aides to provide,remediation on a computer based
    instructional program to serve 180 students a day.
                         hanover county public schools
    16,6111 students; $838,700 annual increase in Federal funding if IDEA
            is fully funded.
        With an additional $500,000 of available revenue annually, Hanover
    would drive down its class sizes from an average of 20:1 at the primary
    grade levels at selected lower performing schools to an average of
    16:1.
        With an additional $800,000 annually, Hanover would fund a new
    program for 4-year old education, identifying students from families
    who desire the same services currently delivered effectively in Head
    Start progranuning, but are services for which Hanover residents may
    not qualify.
        With an additional $800,000 annually, Hanover would incur debt
    service payments of nearly $15 million over 20 years, enabling the
    school district to eliminate largely substandard, temporary classrooms
    and afford all students a safe, nurturing environment for classroom
    instruction.
        With an additional $800,000 annually, Hanover would enhance its
    existing special education programming by adding staff to met many
    unmet needs, including:

         educational diagnosticians to conduct evaluations and
    assist with the placement of children;
         reading specialists to support those children at risk of
    being referred;
         autism specialists;
         additional special education buses with wheel chair lifts;
         additional cars to support special education needs;
         extended contract time for teachers to support the IDEA
    requirements;
         additional speech therapists and psychologists to support
    the IDEA requirements; and
         upgrade FM systems to support the hearing impaired
    population at all instructional levels.
                          roanoke city public schools
    13,800 students; $1,116,100 annual increase in Federal funding if IDEA
            is fully funded.
        Examples of how Roanoke City School division would utilize
    $1,116,100:

         Implementation of a seven period day for two high schools
    (costs $1.028 million) in order to provide 3,150 high school students
    with additional academic course options (Roanoke City now has a six
    period day which limits students' elective choices).
         Expansion of our present preschool program to additional 3
    year old at risk students would serve 375 children who require academic
    and social preparation to be successful at the primary grade level at a
    cost of $996,000.
         Expansion of our after school tutoring and mentoring
    program for middle school students would serve 450 children who are at
    risk for academic failure and dropping out at a cost of $227,500.

        [Whereupon, at 11:02, the committee was adjourned.]