[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND'S EDUCATION CHOICE PROVISIONS: ARE STATES AND
SCHOOL DISTRICTS GIVING PARENTS THE INFORMATION THEY NEED?
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM
of the
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
October 20, 2003 in Taylors, South Carolina
__________
Serial No. 108-38
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
______
90-143 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
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�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin, Vice George Miller, California
Chairman Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Cass Ballenger, North Carolina Major R. Owens, New York
Peter Hoekstra, Michigan Donald M. Payne, New Jersey
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
California Lynn C. Woolsey, California
Michael N. Castle, Delaware Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Sam Johnson, Texas Carolyn McCarthy, New York
James C. Greenwood, Pennsylvania John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
Charlie Norwood, Georgia Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Fred Upton, Michigan Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio
Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan David Wu, Oregon
Jim DeMint, South Carolina Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Johnny Isakson, Georgia Susan A. Davis, California
Judy Biggert, Illinois Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania Danny K. Davis, Illinois
Patrick J. Tiberi, Ohio Ed Case, Hawaii
Ric Keller, Florida Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Denise L. Majette, Georgia
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Chris Van Hollen, Maryland
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Tim Ryan, Ohio
Jon C. Porter, Nevada Timothy H. Bishop, New York
John Kline, Minnesota
John R. Carter, Texas
Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado
Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee
Phil Gingrey, Georgia
Max Burns, Georgia
Paula Nowakowski, Staff Director
John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM
MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware, Chairman
Tom Osborne, Nebraska, Vice Lynn C. Woolsey, California
Chairman Susan A. Davis, California
James C. Greenwood, Pennsylvania Danny K. Davis, Illinois
Fred Upton, Michigan Ed Case, Hawaii
Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Jim DeMint, South Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Judy Biggert, Illinois Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio
Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania Chris Van Hollen, Maryland
Ric Keller, Florida Denise L. Majette, Georgia
Joe Wilson, South Carolina George Miller, California, ex
Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado officio
John A. Boehner, Ohio, ex officio
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on October 20, 2003................................. 1
Statement of Members:
Carter, Hon. John R., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas............................................. 3
DeMint, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State
of South Carolina.......................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Statement of Witnesses:
Harner, Dr. William, Superintendent, Greenville County School
District................................................... 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 24
Jeffrey, Dr. Dana, Vice President of Strategic Sales,
Lightspan.................................................. 29
Prepared statement of.................................... 31
Rees, Nina S., Deputy Under Secretary, Office of Innovation
and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.............. 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Rushing-Jones, Wanda, Coordinator, Federal Programs Unit,
South Carolina Department of Education..................... 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 18
Waggoner, George, Parent and Retired Tech Sergeant (E6), U.S.
Air Force.................................................. 27
Prepared statement of.................................... 28
Additional materials supplied:
Owings, Dr. Darryl F., Superintendent, Spartanburg County
School District Six, Spartanburg, South Carolina, letter
submitted for the record................................... 41
Saylors, Charles J., on behalf of the South Carolina PTA and
the National PTA, statement submitted for the record....... 42
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND'S EDUCATION CHOICE PROVISIONS: ARE STATES AND
SCHOOL DISTRICTS GIVING PARENTS THE INFORMATION THEY NEED?
----------
Monday, October 20, 2003
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Education Reform
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Taylors, South Carolina
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m., in
the Brushy Creek Elementary School, Taylors, South Carolina,
Hon. Jim DeMint presiding.
Present: Representatives DeMint and Carter.
Staff Present: Amanda Farris, Professional Staff Member.
Mr. DeMint. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee on
Education Reform of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce will come to order.
We are meeting here today to hear testimony on No Child
Left Behind's Education Choice Provisions: Are states and
school districts giving parents the information they need? I am
eager to hear from our witnesses, but before I begin, I ask for
unanimous consent for the hearing record to remain open 14 days
to allow Members' statements and other extraneous material
referenced during the hearing to be submitted in the official
hearing record. Without objection, so ordered.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM DeMINT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Good morning, everyone. I do appreciate everyone being
here. It is a privilege to be back in my own district reviewing
some key aspects of education in the No Child Left Behind Act.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Congressman
Carter who has come all the way from Texas to be here in South
Carolina in order to make this hearing possible. Mr. Carter, I
appreciate your willingness to join me in reviewing this very
important issue for our children across America.
I would also like to thank everyone at Brushy Creek
Elementary for opening up their fine school to us today. I
would especially like to thank Principal Sandra Monts for all
of her hard work.
We are here today to discuss the issue of how public school
choice and supplemental education service provisions in the No
Child Left Behind Act are being implemented at the state and
local level.
As many of you know, the No Child Left Behind Act is a
landmark piece of legislation that seeks to ensure that all
children learn. To do this it requires annual testing of public
school students in reading and math in grades three through
eight, report cards for parents on school achievement levels,
improved teacher quality requirements that ensure all students
are being taught by a qualified teacher and public school
choice and supplemental service options for parents with
children in underachieving schools.
I am confident No Child Left Behind will help close the
achievement gap that exists in America between disadvantaged
students and their more affluent peers.
One of the key elements in the No Child Left Behind Act
centers around giving parents information about the quality of
their children's education, and then empowering those parents
to make decisions about that education.
Although education choice and supplemental services were
supposed to be fully implemented at the beginning of 2002 and
2003 school year, the U.S. Department of Education's review of
implementation over the last year indicated that compliance has
been sporadic.
It appears as though some school districts did not offer
education choice or supplemental services to all students who
were eligible. Some did not offer sufficient choices to
eligible students. Others did not fund educational choice-
related transportation and supplemental educational services at
the level required under the Act.
I understand the confusion that some states and school
districts have about the implementation of some of the choice
provisions in No Child Left Behind. I want to assure you that
I, along with other Members of the House Education and
Workforce Committee, am working closely with the U.S.
Department of Education to ensure that everyone at the state
and local level has the information and technical assistance
they need to successfully implement the law and improve
education in the state of South Carolina.
I am confident that the educational reforms in No Child
Left Behind will yield improved results for South Carolina's
children. I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses
this morning. I am confident that we will be able to work
together with all of you to ensure that the law is fully and
successfully implemented in our state.
Again, I would like to thank everyone for attending today.
I would especially like to thank our distinguished witnesses
for their participation. I look forward to your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. DeMint follows:]
Statement of Hon. Jim DeMint, a Representative in Congress from the
State of South Carolina
Good morning. Thank you for joining us here today.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank
Congressman Carter for taking time out of his busy schedule to come to
South Carolina in order to make this hearing possible. Mr. Carter, I
appreciate your willingness to join me in reviewing this very important
issue for children across America.
I would also like to thank everyone at Brushy Creek
Elementary for opening up their fine school to us today. I would
especially like to thank Principal Sandra Monts for all of her hard
work.
We are here today to discuss the issue of how the public
school choice and supplemental educational service provisions in the No
Child Left Behind Act are being implemented at the state and local
level.
As many of you know, the No Child Left Behind Act is a
landmark piece of legislation that seeks to ensure that all children
learn. To do this it requires annual testing of public school students
in reading and math in grades 3-8, report cards for parents on school
achievement levels, improved teacher quality requirements that ensure
all students are being taught by a qualified teacher, and public school
choice and supplemental service options for parents with children in
underachieving schools.
I am confident No Child Left Behind will help close the
achievement gap that exists in America between disadvantaged students
and their more affluent peers.
One of the key elements in the No Child Left Behind Act
centers around giving parents information about the quality of their
children's education, and then empowering those parents to make
decisions about that education.
Although educational choice and supplemental services
were supposed to be fully implemented at the beginning of 2002-2003
school year, the U.S. Department of Education's review of
implementation over the last year indicated that compliance has been
sporadic.
It appears as though some school districts did not offer
educational choice or supplemental services to all students who were
eligible. Some did not offer sufficient choices to eligible students.
Others did not fund educational choice-related transportation and
supplemental educational services at the level required under the Act.
I understand the confusion that some States and school
districts have about the implementation of some of the choice
provisions in No Child Left Behind. I want to assure you that I, along
with other members of the House Education and the Workforce Committee,
am working closely with the U.S. Department of Education to ensure that
everyone at the state and local level has the information and technical
assistance they need to successfully implement the law and improve
education in the State of South Carolina.
I am confident that the educational reforms in the No
Child Left Behind Act will yield improved results for South Carolina's
children. I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses this
morning. I am confident that we will be able to work together with all
of you to ensure that the law is fully and successfully implemented in
our state.
______
Mr. DeMint. At this time, I would like to yield to my
colleague, Mr. Carter, for an opening statement he would like
to offer.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN R. CARTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Carter. Good morning. First, I would like to thank
Congressman DeMint for holding this hearing. I look forward to
this hearing and to hear from all of the witnesses that are
going to be here, those folks who are kind enough to be with us
this morning.
I think I ought to tell you a little bit about me so that
you know who this stranger is up here. I am from--the part of
Texas that I am from is central Texas. I live just north of
Austin, which is the capitol city. My district stretches from
Austin to Houston. It also includes Texas A&M University, which
is a big deal. My background is that I have been for the last
20 years a state district judge, so if I appear to be frowning
at you from time to time, I apologize. That is the nature of
being a judge. You sit and frown at people, but I really am not
that mean. I am real happy to be here in South Carolina. I want
to thank you for bringing up this beautiful weather which
welcomed me when I got here.
No Child Left Behind is a critical piece of educational
legislation that will help close the achievement gap that
exists in America between disadvantaged students and their more
affluent peers. Through hard work--the hard work of state and
local educational leaders we will ensure that every child
regardless of race, economic background, ability or geography
has access to first class education. No Child Left Behind
reflects the four pillars of President Bush's education reform
agenda--accountability in testing, flexibility in local
control, funding that works and expanded parental option. No
Child Left Behind requires annual testing of public school
students in reading and math in grades 3 through 8, report
cards for parents on school achievement levels, improved
teacher quality requirements that ensure all of our students
are being taught by qualified teachers and public school choice
supplemental service options for parents with children in
underachieving schools.
Improving education by increasing options for parents and
students is top priority for Republicans in Congress. School
choice offers proven results of better education not only for
children enrolled in specific plans but also for children whose
public schools benefit from increased competition. We are
believers in competition. Currently more affluent parents
already have school choice because they have the ability to
send their children to the best schools available, including
moving to a better neighborhood. Low income parents are all too
often forced to keep their children trapped in underachieving
and dangerous schools that do not teach and do not change.
These students should have an escape route. Giving parents new
options to achieve greater choice and competition in their
child's education is the critical next step in education reform
not only for thousands of disadvantaged students but also for
struggling schools and districts. Our educational system should
serve the students. The students are important, not the
educational system.
The provision of supplemental services is a critical
element in No Child Left Behind. Supplemental services provide
an important option for students that are trapped in
underperforming schools by allowing them to access additional
tutoring and specialized services in order to improve their
academic achievement. Supplemental services provide an
important alternative to public school choice in rural areas
since transportation to better performing schools is difficult
in rural communities.
I was visiting with a lady just a few minutes ago here
talking about the rural communities. We have a lot of rural
communities in Texas. Many of those are much farther apart than
they are here in South Carolina. That is the whole purpose of
coming up with this alternative.
As a Member of Congress from the state of Texas, I am
about--I am pleased that my home state has been able to approve
approximately 30 supplemental service providers that are
helping students to achieve academic--to improve their academic
achievement.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank
Congressman DeMint for organizing this hearing. I would like to
thank all of the witnesses that are here today. I am looking
forward to hearing from the folks here in South Carolina. Thank
you.
Mr. DeMint. Thank you, Mr. Carter.
We have two panels of witnesses today and I will begin by
introducing the witness on our first panel. Ms. Nina Rees,
Deputy Under Secretary, Office of Innovation and Improvement
for the U.S. Department of Education in Washington.
Ms. Rees currently leads the newly created Office of
Innovation and Improvement for the U.S. Department of
Education. Previously Ms. Rees was one of the four aides to
Vice President Cheney advising him on domestic policy issues.
From 1997 through 2001 Ms. Rees served as the Chief Education
Analyst for the prestigious Heritage Foundation, earning the
Foundation's Rita Ricardo Campbell award in 1999 because of her
outstanding contributions to the analysis and promotion of the
Free Society.
Ms. Rees, we normally limit our witnesses to 5 minutes but
since you are the whole first panel, I will give you some
discretion in taking as much time as you need to discuss your
testimony and to answer our questions. So please begin.
STATEMENT OF NINA S. REES, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Ms. Rees. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman and Mr. Carter, thank you for the opportunity
to testify before you today about the public school choice and
supplemental service provisions of the No Child Left Behind
Act.
I would also like to take this moment to thank Mr. DeMint
for his leadership in expanding educational choice, namely your
recent effort to expand choices for students with disabilities.
Choice and supplemental services under Title I are probably
one of the most important provisions of No Child Left Behind
and ones that the Bush Administration has been focusing on a
great deal over the past few years.
Ensuring that these provisions are implemented properly is
one of the key goals of the Department of Education, one of the
reasons why the Secretary of Education created my office of
Innovation and Improvement a little over 10 months ago. In
addition to administering roughly 25 grant programs, our office
is also charged with coordinating the implementation of the
public school choice and supplemental service provisions of No
Child Left Behind and with forging strategic linkages between
the two provisions and other choice-related programs that the
Department oversees and administers such as the Charter School
grant p-Program.
Again, while our office has only been around for 10 months
we have spent a great deal of time thinking about ways to make
school choice a reality for students who are currently
attending schools that are in need of improvement or corrective
action.
Now before describing what exactly it is that we've done to
help implement these provisions, I want to tell you a little
bit about the public school choice and supplemental service
provisions of the law, because I feel that a lot of times when
you go to states and school districts there is still a lot of
confusion as to what exactly the law outlines.
As you know, the No Child Left Behind establishes
consequences for schools that receive Title I funding and fail
to make what we call ``adequate yearly progress'' over a period
of years. So if a Title I school does not make adequate yearly
progress for two consecutive years it is identified as a school
in need of improvement and every child in that school qualifies
for public school choice.
If a school enters into its second year of improvement
because it fails to make adequate yearly progress for 3 years
in a row, the district must also offer to students enrolled in
that school who are from low-income families access to what we
call ``supplemental services'', which are also known as after-
school tutoring and other instructional aids in order to make
sure that the child comes back up to the grade level that he or
she is supposed to be performing at.
The statute also includes very specific requirements
regarding the amount of money that the affected districts must
spend on public school choice and supplemental services. We
have in essence told the districts that they can set aside up
to 20 percent of their Title I funds for public school choice
and supplemental services, but they do not necessarily have to
only rely on Title I funds, they can certainly use other pots
of money if they have access to other resources. Of that 20
percent, 5 percent must be set aside for transportation, for
public school choice and at least 5 percent must set aside for
supplemental services. The statute also sets forth requirements
on the amount of money a district must spend per individual
student for supplemental services. This comes to somewhere
about $800 to $1500 or more, depending on the school district
that the child resides in.
Now those are some basic requirements under the statute.
The Department has spent a lot of time over the past year
putting together questions and updating the guidance that is
made available to states and school districts for districts to
be able to implement these provisions as well as possible.
However, we also feel that a lot of school districts, even
though they want to follow the letter of the law, oftentimes do
not have the resources and the know-how at their disposal in
order to be able to implement these provisions in a quick and
effective way, which is why my office has been in the process
of putting together a booklet of best practices in both of
these areas, which will be released sometime in March or April
of 2004.
Now let me say a little bit about what we have heard so far
and how we think the implementation of these provisions is
proceeding so far. We do not yet have any kind of national data
available to us from states about the status of implementation
in different school districts. But based on the reports we have
gotten so far from different districts, the media and other
outlets, we have basically identified four distinct problems
with the way the implementation is occurring around the
country.
First of all, implementation occurred in a very uneven
fashion in 2002-2003. States often did not have their test
scores available in time to be able to identify schools in need
of improvement, which is the first thing that needs to happen
before a district offers public school choice or supplemental
services. States also took some months to approve their initial
pools of supplemental service providers. But we would also
admit that by the second semester of last year a lot of
districts had access to their lists and also had access to the
state lists of providers. We hope, also, that we will probably
see much more consistent implementation of the law in this
existing school year.
Second, state approval of supplemental service providers
has increased significantly, which means that parents
opportunity to select the services that are best for their
children has also increased. In fact, a quick look at the State
Department of Education's website identifies over 1400
providers in different parts of the country standing ready to
serve students. Nonetheless, not all communities have available
a comparable range of service providers. Access in rural
communities is very spotty.
Third, the Department has received reports that some
districts are not funding choice-related transportation or
supplemental services at the levels called for in the statute.
When we receive these reports, what we tend to do is call the
state education agency to ask them to tell us a little bit more
about why a particular school district has not been setting
aside the necessary sum of funds. Note, however, that it is not
always clear prior to the investigation whether the law has
been violated. In fact, districts can spend less than the
statutory funding levels for transportation and supplemental
services if they have satisfied the demand for these services.
That is kind of a rough area that is difficult for us to
decipher, and we need to discuss a little bit more about if we
want the implementation to go a lot more smoothly.
And last--and this relates to my final point which I just
raised. We are finding numerous instances around the country
where a school district is arguably abiding by the law, it is
really not yet implementing the requirements very well. Again,
this is why it is so important for my office and other folks at
the Department to be thinking of ways to assist school
districts with ``best practice'' models and other types of
technical assistance so they can better implement these
provisions of the law.
In saying this, I do not intend to be overly critical of
states or school districts. I know that both choice and
supplemental services impose new administrative requirements on
them and also pose complicated issues that can be difficult to
resolve. But I strongly believe that these types of issues
provide a compelling basis for the Department's efforts to work
with states, school districts and providers on resolving some
of these issues so we can do a better job of aggressively
implementing these provisions of the law.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. I would be happy
to take any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rees follows:]
Statement of Nina S. Rees, Deputy Under Secretary for Innovation and
Improvement, U.S. Department of Education
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today on implementation of the public
school choice and supplemental educational services requirements of
Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
Choice and supplemental services under Title I are two of the most
important elements of No Child Left Behind, and the Bush Administration
has made their successful implementation a very high priority. No Child
Left Behind provides resources for schools identified for improvement
to adopt new instructional approaches, curricula, and teacher
professional development strategies, and to carry out other activities
designed to enable them to provide all children with a high-quality
education. But the process of turning around a troubled school can take
time, and during the school improvement process, parents of children
attending a school identified for improvement must have options for
ensuring that those children receive high-quality educational services.
The choice and supplemental services provisions give them two very
powerful options. Both provide parents, who are a child's first and
most important teacher, additional opportunity to be involved in, and
make important decisions about, their child's education. Both are based
on the principles of quality and accountability--the choice provisions
because, under the statute, eligible students may transfer only to
schools that are not in ``school improvement status,'' and the
supplemental services provisions because services may be provided only
by organizations or other entities that have a track record of success
and are willing to be held accountable for results. These components of
No Child Left Behind thus have the potential to make a major difference
in educational outcomes for children attending schools in low-income
communities.
Ensuring that these provisions are implemented well is one of the
reasons Secretary Paige created, late last year, the Department's new
Office of Innovation and Improvement, the office that I lead. In
addition to administering a number of the Department's grant programs,
we are charged with overseeing, with the Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education, the implementation of choice and supplemental
services and with forging strategic linkages between the two provisions
and other choice-related programs and activities, such as charter
schools and private schools, that are within my office's jurisdiction.
While our office has been in existence for only about 10 months, we
have already devoted considerable time and attention to this part of
our mission.
Before describing what we have done and the activities that we have
under way, it may be useful to summarize for the Committee some of the
major requirements of the Title I statute and regulations related to
choice and supplemental educational services.
As you know, the No Child Left Behind Act establishes consequences
for schools that receive Title I funding and fail to make ``adequate
yearly progress'' (AYP) over a period of years. If a Title I school
does not make AYP for two consecutive years, it is identified for
improvement, and the local educational agency must give all students
attending that school the opportunity to transfer to another school
within the district. The schools to which those students are given the
opportunity to transfer cannot be schools that have been identified as
in need of improvement. In addition, the regulations require that all
students be given at least two choices of schools to which they can
transfer, so long as there are that many eligible schools in the
district.
Although many school districts have had open enrollment or other
choice programs in place for years, one of the key elements of No Child
Left Behind is that districts must provide, or provide for,
transportation for all students who elect to change schools under the
Title I choice provisions, up to a spending limit in the statute. This
makes the exercise of choice much more realistic than it would
otherwise be.
In addition, the law sets out requirements that apply in situations
in which there are no choices available within a district--for
instance, because the district has only one school at a particular
grade level, or because all schools at that level are undergoing
improvement. In these cases, the school district must, to the extent
feasible, enter into agreements with other districts that can absorb
some of its students as transfers.
If a school enters its second year of improvement, because it fails
to make AYP for another year, the district must also offer, to students
enrolled in that school who are from low-income families, the
opportunity to receive supplemental services. Supplemental services are
tutoring and other academic enrichment services that are provided
outside the regular school day, that add to the instruction students
receive during the school day, that are of high quality and research-
based, and that are designed to enable students to increase their
academic achievement and attain proficiency according to State
standards. These services are an alternative to the continuing
opportunity to transfer to another school.
Any type of entity--a public school or school district, a private
school, a for-profit or non-profit organization, a community or faith-
based organization, even an individual teacher or group of teachers who
create an entity under State law--can become a provider of supplemental
services, so long as it is approved by the State as having a high-
quality program and a strong track record. States then inform local
school districts of which providers are available to provide services
in their area, and parents can select the provider that they believe is
most appropriate for their child. Once a selection is made, the school
district enters into a contract with the provider, spelling out the
services to be provided, the goals to be attained, how progress toward
those goals will be measured, and how the family and the school will be
kept informed of that progress.
The statute also includes very specific requirements regarding the
amount of money that affected districts must spend for choice-related
transportation and supplemental services. Any district that has schools
covered by the choice and supplemental services requirements must spend
at least the equivalent of 20 percent of its Title I allocation on the
combination of choice-related transportation and supplemental services.
(A district may, at its option, spend more for these purposes.) Within
that 20 percent, at least 5 percent must be used for transportation and
at least 5 percent for supplemental services, with the remaining 10
percent allocated at district discretion based on relative need and
demand. The statute also sets forth requirements on the amount of money
a district must spend, per individual student, for supplemental
services.
Those are some of the basic requirements. Because choice and
supplemental services are very new elements of Title I, the States and
the districts have needed much more information than just the basics.
The Department has responded by completing and issuing comprehensive
guidance on both provisions. We issued draft guidance on choice and
supplemental services last December, and then released an update to the
supplemental services guidance, mainly responding to new questions we
had received, in August. We are currently updating the choice guidance,
and hope to release the new version very soon. We have been active in
explaining these guidance packages, through conferences and other
activities with State and local administrators.
The law, the Department's regulations, and the guidance, taken
together, tell States and school districts what they may do, what they
may not do, and what they have to do. But for successful
implementation, administrators at the State and local levels need more;
they need ideas and strategies for doing these things well. My office
has responded by commissioning a series of publications describing
``best practices'' in different areas. The first two of these
publications, which will look at choice and supplemental services, will
be available in late winter and early spring of next year. They will
respond to districts'' concerns in such areas as how to provide all
eligible students with choice when the number of spaces in available
schools may be limited, or how to provide supplemental services
effectively through distance learning.
I believe that supplemental services will not be effective--or at
least not as effective as they could be--if there is not a wide range
of service providers available. This may be particularly important in
rural communities, where some of the established providers do not have
a presence. Some of the more rural States have approved only a handful
of providers. The answer, I believe, will be to encourage more local
groups and organizations to become providers. Through my office, we are
reaching out to the private school community, to encourage private
schools to become providers, and the Department's Center for Faith-
Based and Community Initiatives is making a similar effort with faith-
and community-based organizations. In addition, we are reaching out to
the community of providers of after-school programs and in December we
will hold a conference, jointly hosted with the Mott Foundation, on
building linkages between supplemental services and 21st Century
Community Learning Centers programs.
The new provisions also will not be successful if the parents of
eligible students do not know about them. While school districts are
responsible for notifying those parents about choice and supplemental
services, a letter coming home from the district may not be enough. In
order to broaden public awareness of supplemental services, the
Department contracted for a series of video news releases and public
service announcements that aired in communities during the time their
school districts were enrolling students for services.
Let me say a little bit about how I think the implementation of
choice and supplemental services is proceeding. We do not yet have
national impact or evaluation data--it is simply too early to obtain
that kind of information--but based on reports from the States, school
districts, and the media, I think the following can be said with some
confidence:
Implementation occurred unevenly during school year
2002-2003. States often did not have their test score data
available in time to identify schools as in need of improvement
before the beginning of the school year, which meant that
parents were not given the opportunity for choice in time.
States also took some months to approve their initial pools of
supplemental service providers, which meant that services were
not available early in the school year. By the second semester,
however, students were receiving services in almost all States.
We hope for, and expect, much more consistent implementation
this school year.
State approval of supplemental service providers has
increased significantly, which means that parents'' opportunity
to select the services that are best for their children has
also increased. As of the end of September, States had approved
over 1450 providers, as indicated by postings on their
websites. Nonetheless, not all communities have available a
comparable range of service providers; access in rural areas
can be spotty.
The Department has received reports that some
districts are not funding choice-related transportation or
supplemental services at the levels called for in the statute.
Some may be arbitrarily limiting the amount they spend in
total, or the amount spent per pupil for supplemental services,
at less than the statutory requirements. When we receive these
reports, our practice is to notify the State educational
agencies, which have responsibility for first-line enforcement
of Title I requirements, and ask them to investigate the
situation and ensure that any violations of the law are
corrected. Note, however, that it is not always clear, prior to
an investigation, that the law has been violated. Districts can
spend less than the statutory funding levels for transportation
and supplemental services if they have satisfied the demand for
those services.
This relates directly to my final point about
implementation. We are finding numerous instances, around the
country, where a school district is arguably abiding by the
law, but is not yet implementing the requirements very well.
Some have notified parents about choice and supplemental
services, but did not make the aggressive outreach effort one
would hope for and, thus, many families did not really find out
what was available. Some made it more difficult for parents to
sign up than they could have, for instance by requiring them to
enroll at district headquarters. Some have established what may
be unreasonable contractual requirements with providers, or
made it difficult for outside providers to make use of school
facilities.
In saying these things, I do not intend to be overly critical of
the districts. I know that both choice and supplemental services impose
new administrative requirements on them and also pose complicated
issues that can be difficult to resolve. And contractual requirements
that may seem burdensome to providers may make good sense. But I
strongly believe that these types of issues provide a compelling basis
for the Department's efforts to work with States, school districts, and
providers on resolving any issues and to identify and disseminate
information on best practices. We will continue with that very
aggressive effort this year.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions you or the other Members may have.
______
Mr. DeMint. Great. Thank you, very much.
Let me ask kind of a general question just to make sure
that we have covered it. What does the Department of
Education--or why does the Department of Education think that
public school choice and the availability of supplemental
services will help every child learn?
Ms. Rees. To answer that question, I think it is important
to give a little bit of background about why these provisions
were put in place to begin with. Most individuals who have
studied the course of Federal education policymaking since 1965
would attest to the fact that the way we have been funding
states and school districts so far has not been an effective
way for us to see if these programs that we are funding are
actually raising student achievement. So one of the key things
that the President and the Secretary did upon taking office and
putting in place No Child Left Behind was to also put in place
a series of consequences when states and school districts and
schools that received Federal funds were not able to raise
student achievement on a regular basis. So the idea behind
public school choice and supplemental services is really
predicated on the notion that the funds available at the
Federal level are funds targeted at the needs of low-income
students, and that we need to trust the parents of those
students with the decision as to where they should be educated
at times when the school system has failed, for whatever
reason, to raise their student achievement on a regular basis.
So it is a shift in thinking from simply funding school systems
to funding the needs of individual children and trusting their
parents a little bit more.
Mr. DeMint. In your opinion, are the school districts
reserving the required amount of funding in providing the
necessary transportation to facilitate the school choice?
Ms. Rees. As I mentioned in my testimony, it is very
difficult for us to access whether they are in fact setting
aside enough funds. The reports we are getting from the
provider community primarily indicate that they are not setting
aside as much as the law has required. But at the same time, as
I mentioned, if they can demonstrate that there is no need for
these services, they can always spend less on choice and
supplemental services and shift the funds to other types of
programs that they have to offer. The statute does not require
them to create a separate pot of money for choice and
supplemental services, so in looking at their bookkeeping you
can also not detect as to where exactly they are investing the
funds for choice and supplemental services. And again, these
are glitches along the way that we hope to overcome by
highlighting ``best practice'' models and showing them how they
can best provide choice and supplemental services while at the
same time ensuring that if they have extra funds they can at
some point in time invest it in other needs that their schools
have.
Mr. DeMint. You mentioned best practices, and I see that
one of the roles of the Department of Education is to identify
where these programs are working best and to communicate that
back to districts all across the country. Is that happening
now?
Ms. Rees. We have commissioned a study to look at best
practice models. Unfortunately unlike some other areas--other
innovative areas that the Department is investing in, such as
charter schools and public school choice--this is a very new
area. So we have not been able to find one school district that
is doing everything that the statute and the regulations have
outlined in a very effective fashion. However, we are hopeful
that by the time this report is published that we have at least
identified certain practices within each district that address
some of the components of the law, be it parental outreach or
communications, and work with the provider community so we can
identify different things that they are doing. Also that you
can offer a full picture to a district that may be wanting to
use those practices to do everything in a proper way.
Mr. DeMint. One of the complaints I have heard from those
involved with school district administration is that while
Title I funds may be used for supplemental services they can be
used for transportation, but if a student moves from one public
school to another, a Title I student, that that money does not
effectively follow that student to the other school. Is that
true?
Ms. Rees. I have also heard these complaints, except that
if--depending on how the states' funding formulas work, once a
child moves from one school to another, supposedly the
following year the state allocations of funds will take into
account that this child is now in a different school and the
funds that the state is allocating for that child ought to also
follow that child to the new school.
Mr. DeMint. If the new school is a Title I school.
Ms. Rees. Or even if it is not a Title I school, your per-
pupil allocation would ultimately end up with you in the new
school.
Mr. DeMint. OK.
Ms. Rees. You would have to have at least 10 Title I
students in your school in order to be considered a school that
is receiving Title I for the Title I funds to continue flowing
into the new school.
Mr. DeMint. I will yield to my colleague, Mr. Carter, for
some additional questions.
Mr. Carter. This area of school funding--are the school
districts calculating the per-pupil average correctly? Are
districts making sure that parents are aware of this average
and what does this mean to the children?
Ms. Rees. For supplemental services?
Mr. Carter. Right.
Ms. Rees. As noted earlier, based on the different reports
that we are getting, primarily from the providers who are
serving the students in these school systems, it appears that
they are not necessarily setting aside enough money for school
choice and supplemental services. Even more so, they are not
setting aside the per-pupil amount that the child is entitled
to in order to get services at the provider of their choice. We
have several systems or several mechanisms at our disposal to
investigate how well school districts are doing this. At worst,
we can also go to the school district and audit the district to
see if they are in fact setting aside funds. But also keep in
mind that it is very difficult for us at the Federal level to
delve into what 16,000 school districts around the country are
doing. And in terms of the Federal role in education, we
believe that we should entrust states with the responsibility
of doing this type of monitoring and auditing on a more regular
basis.
Mr. Carter. The purpose of No Child Left Behind, as I
understand it, is just what it says. It is child based--a
child-based program, and what we are trying to do, the way I
understand the concept, is to make sure that every child that
graduates from school here in South Carolina has the skills to
live life in this United States. Just a few minutes ago, I was
interviewed by a lady on the radio and she informed me that a
couple of non-performing schools here in this school district
had been closed. I do not know if the reasons--I am sure the
authorities had good reasons. It is not our goal to close non-
performing schools, it is our goal, as I understand it, to
improve non-performing schools, is that right?
Ms. Rees. That is correct. However, if a school district
feels that the best way to reform a school is by closing it and
reopening it under new management and with a new structure in
place, then that is also something that we have encouraged in
the past.
Mr. Carter. And that would be more along the lines of what
we would see as the improvement is thinking outside the box as
I like to say. We hope to be encouraging administrators to
think outside the box and try to come up with creative new ways
to make non-performing schools performing schools. We are not
trying to close down and eliminate and make all those children
be bused across town. We are trying to make--to encourage
innovative thinking to make those schools improve and hopefully
this is sort of a carrot rather than a stick to get that done.
Would you think that is a good description?
Ms. Rees. Absolutely. And I think increasing options is one
of the key goals of the law, and you would in essence want to
have more schools created in a community rather than limiting
the pool of schools within a community.
Mr. Carter. When we are talking about the ability to
transfer from non-performing schools, as I said in my opening
statement, once we get out into the rural areas of a state
there is no option in many instances to find another performing
school within any reasonable transportation time from the non-
performing school or within the district. So let us talk about
the alternative program that we would have which is providing
services for those children. Is that the reason--the No. 1
reason why we have come up with tutors and type of thing to
provide service here? And what would you see for the rural
school? What is the rural school's solution to the non-
performing underprivileged student?
Ms. Rees. Those are two separate questions. The Secretary
has spent a lot of time thinking about ways to come up with
solutions for the needs of rural districts. He has, in fact,
put together a task force that is going to come up with a
series of solutions, hopefully, about ways you can address
these needs. But keep in mind the needs of different rural
districts are very different. So what may work in Alaska is
probably not going to necessarily work in another state that
just happens to have a rural community.
The No. 1 reason why supplemental services was put in place
was not necessarily to address the needs of students in rural
communities, but more so to address this whole question of what
happens once a school continues on an annual basis not to show
improvement. So whereas after 2 years you have to offer public
school choice, after 3 years we have asked that districts offer
additional tutoring programs that parents can pick and choose
from.
Am I answering your question?
Mr. Carter. Yes, that answers the question.
Ms. Rees. So the option to take advantage of after-school
tutoring in instances where there are no other public schools
available is something that we have put on the table, but at
the same time we think it is very important for districts to
think of other innovative ways to offer public school choice of
some kind in these rural districts, be it through virtual
schooling or creating charter schools. In fact, one of the key
ways to really generate momentum for the public school choice
piece of the law is by lifting the caps on charter schools and
encouraging the creation of more charter schools in some areas
that do not have a lot of those schools already.
Mr. Carter. Finally, in the issue of supplemental services,
what is the Department of Education doing--
Ms. Rees. I am sorry. Can I just amend that?
Mr. Carter. Yeah.
Ms. Rees. The other thing we have been trying to encourage
states to do is encourage interdistrict choice so that you
contract with a neighboring district to send a child to a
neighboring public school of your choice.
Mr. Carter. When we talk about supplemental services, what
is the Department doing to encourage more private schools,
along with community-based faith-based organizations?
Ms. Rees. We have an outfit--the faith-based office of the
Department of Education--whose sole job is to encourage the
creation of more faith and community-based supplemental service
providers. Our office has also conducted a number of seminars
with private school organizations. We just had a meeting-- a
very good meeting with the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. to
encourage them to consider becoming supplemental service
providers. A lot of times these smaller schools simply do not
have access to information or access to a grant writer who can
apply for--or fill out the forms necessary in order to become a
supplemental service provider. So we really see a real need.
Well, the Department hopes to really offer more technical
assistance to these schools because ultimately in order for
this piece of the law to really function as well as the
President and the Secretary would like it to, we need to really
be able to diversify the pool of providers. Right now, what we
currently have on the books are providers who are currently
already in existence in Title I districts and offering services
to the schools. The number of faith and private providers is
fairly low, so we hope to increase those numbers in the next
year.
Mr. Carter. Thank you very much, Ms. Rees.
Mr. DeMint. Ms. Rees, I want to thank you for taking time
to come down. I know you have to leave to head back to
Washington, but this has been very timely and valuable
testimony. I appreciate your expertise on this issue.
I am particularly interested in the continued development
of alternative supplemental services that are community based.
I really look forward to a report in that area that we have
more providers in the future. So I would dismiss you and ask
our second panel to come forward and take their seats.
I think we have you all scrunched in there. Be sure not to
push Mrs. Rushing-Jones off the stage.
[Laughter.]
Mr. DeMint. Well, let us get started. What we would like to
do with this panel is allow all of you to give your testimony
and then we will go back and just ask a lot of questions, so we
will not stop after each to talk. We will limit you to 5
minutes. So if you have additional statements to make, we can
do that during the question and answer time, but try to hold
your statements to 5 minutes so we can move through and get to
the questions and answers.
We will start with Mrs. Wanda Rushing-Jones, the
Coordinator of Federal Programs for the South Carolina
Department of Education. Mrs. Rushing-Jones currently serves as
the Coordinator of Federal Programs Unit for the Department of
Education here in South Carolina. Previously Mrs. Rushing-Jones
was the South Carolina Title I coordinator and Title I project
supervisor in South Carolina. Also, the Subcommittee has
learned that Mrs. Rushing-Jones was married this past week. So
we certainly want to extend our heartfelt congratulations and
thank you for spending your honeymoon here with us today.
[Laughter.]
Mr. DeMint. So we will let you start us off and I will
introduce the other panelists when we are finished.
STATEMENT OF WANDA RUSHING-JONES, COORDINATOR, FEDERAL PROGRAMS
UNIT, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ACCOMPANIED BY
SANDRA LINDSAY, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF THE DIVISION OF
CURRICULUM SERVICES AND ASSESSMENT
Mrs. Rushing-Jones. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of
the Committee, I cannot think of a better place to be just
after the honeymoon. Thank you for having me.
What I would like to do is share with you a state
perspective from South Carolina on how we are implementing
supplemental services and school choice.
This past school year we did have 27 schools identified for
school improvement. Currently based upon a preliminary school
improvement identification, we did move forward with
notification to parents on the choice issues and supplemental
services. With our final school preliminary identification we
have 82 schools identified for school improvement. Fifty-nine
of those are implementing choice only and 23 are in the
category of choice and supplemental services.
To disseminate the information about these requirements to
the local school districts we use many different means. First
of all, we utilize the Department's website on an ongoing
basis, and we do send e-mails on a regular basis to the
district Title I coordinators. We have had various meetings
with our schools who are identified for school improvement and
with the district staff. And this past year, to ensure the
implementation was on schedule, we made calls over a 2 to 3-
month period directly to the school districts to make sure they
were implementing the procedures appropriately and to learn of
any questions they might have so that we could share those with
the Washington staff.
We have made numerous presentations to districts, we have
had several conferences and held additional meetings about No
Child Left Behind, but really targeting on supplemental
services and choice. We have shared samples of the contracts
that may be used for establishing the supplemental services
with providers and parents. And with the recent guidance in
supplemental services that we received August 22nd, we held a
1-day meeting on September 23rd to share all of that
information with districts. And we do annually train our Title
I coordinators that are new.
With the school choice provision, the process is very much
one that districts would follow based upon that preliminary
identification prior to the beginning of school. They did so
through the purpose of newsletters or newspapers and also
letters sent home to parents. For the 2003-2004 school year, we
had 38,000 children approximately that were eligible for
choice. Of these we understand right now 1345 children have
taken advantage of choice and the number of schools offered as
choice options would be 81.
There are some issues related to the choice situation that
I thought I might share with you. Although school capacity is
not a reason to not implement choice, it is something we do
need to consider from the standpoint of finding some relief on
the funding for additional space such as portables to make a
difference with that space issue.
We do also have children that are transferring to schools
that are not Title I eligible in some cases. And it is true
that you cannot transfer those staff with those children and
use Title I funding, but with state and local budget cuts they
really need to have some resources to accommodate the staffing
needs.
One concern under Title I legislation is the requirement
for comparability. That is a look between the state and local
resources to ensure that there is a comparable basis between
the Title I and non-Title I schools on a per-pupil expenditure
or instructional staff/student ratio. As you start to move
staff between the Title I and non-Title I schools, then it may
prevent a district from being able to demonstrate comparability
as is required under the Title I law.
Transportation is also an issue for a few places. In most
of our districts they have been able to accommodate the choice
transportation through their current bus situation,
particularly with Greenville. I know they have asked on
occasion to purchase a bus under Title I funding. We were
waiting for an answer at one point, so they moved forward with
leasing the buses. We did finally get an answer that we could
purchase the bus, but the issues tied to that was still looking
at whether or not this was going to be a supplementary
component in addition to what had already been done for that
child in prior years to get to his regular school. And also, if
there was no longer a need for the bus what would be the
disposition issues.
Moving to supplemental services. In the current school year
we have 21 providers approved. We do not presently have a
number to share with you today on the numbers that took
advantage of supplemental services, because that process is
underway. Everyone is starting with their notice to parents,
following them now with the meetings in schools. Last year we
did have 297 students that took advantage of supplementary
services.
South Carolina is probably unique in the fact that we have
an annual application process for providers and we thought that
to be very critical as we were learning the early stages of
implementation of supplemental services. We knew the word was
just starting to get out to the providers and we wanted to
ensure the best quality applicants that we could possibly could
have as approved providers.
From the monitoring standpoint, we have been monitoring
districts onsite to ensure that they have implemented the
program correctly, and helping them to learn through technical
assistance as well. We have been monitoring all of the
applications and making sure they were meeting that 20 percent
set aside. So we do not approve an application unless they have
the appropriate amount in reserve.
All of the providers that were approved this past year that
did offer services were monitored. We did this with the team.
That team conducted phone interviews of the parents, students,
providers, as well as various district staff. And then we
additionally went onsite and talked with the providers about
the instructional materials and the instructional delivery.
Monitoring was based upon looking at the application itself
that was submitted, the contract that was developed, the
satisfaction of parents, students, the integrity of the
provider and various other pieces were reviewed. We did not
look at the effectiveness of the provider this past year due to
the late time of starting supplemental services with the
transition under the new law.
Information for dissemination to the providers and parents
has been very much where we would share the information with
districts and then we are asking districts to share the
information with providers. We have aided them in this process
by this year including a one-page summary of the providers'
services, qualifications, effectiveness, and we are lifting
that one-page summary from each of the approved providers
sharing it with districts and asking that they in turn then
share that with the parents for decisionmaking. We also
recommended to districts that they not only do a notice to
parents but additionally have meetings at the school level
where parents could come and hear the providers share what they
have to offer to help them make good decisions.
There are some issues related to supplemental services that
I would like to share. First with the cap of 20 percent for
choice and supplemental services. It is very difficult to move
forward fully with supplemental services as early as we would
like because of the fact that we need to know first of all how
much money is going to be spent on choice transportation before
knowing how much is available for supplemental services.
The per-pupil allocation. That has also been a concern area
for us. In some districts it is the $800 or $900 amount that
you are talking about. In larger districts it may be $1200 per
child, but for some providers that still is not sufficient.
We did find in the monitoring process some of the parents
and some of the district staff are a little hesitant to talk
about any of the concerns they may be having with supplemental
services. There was concern for litigation issues.
We have also recently faced a facilities issue,
particularly in Greenville. Last year we had one instance and
we resolved that problem in a rural site and they were able to
move the provider services on to a community facility. But some
of the districts will have a board policy possibly for concerns
with liability issues that may cause us not to be a service
onsite at the school. We are hoping to work with any of those
providers who are having those issues in maybe helping them to
find additional facilities where they may provide services.
The rural areas. That is also a concern because the for-
profit providers are not going to find it cost effective--that
is what we are hearing. Now we have looked at distance learning
and thus far have not found distance learning to be the answer,
because we have questioned some of the quality and privacy
issues of the students. But we are still looking at those
options.
Minimum number of students for services. In some of our
large districts, we are encountering problems with providers
that agree to provide services and we anticipate things moving
smoothly, but then learn they are limiting it to 50 to 100
children that they must have in certain districts before they
will be able to provide services.
Mr. DeMint. We need to cut you off.
Mrs. Rushing-Jones. That is fine.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Rushing-Jones follows:]
Statement of Wanda Rushing Jones, Coordinator of the Federal Programs
Unit, South Carolina Department of Education
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I appreciate this
opportunity to testify before you today on the implementation of the
school choice and supplemental services requirements of Title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, reauthorized by the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
I would like to share with you the State perspective on
implementation of these provisions as they relate to South Carolina.
Numbers of Schools in School Improvement for the 2002-03 School Year--
27 total
Number to implement choice only--12 schools
Number to implement choice and supplemental services- 15 schools
School Improvement for the 2003-04 School Year
Preliminary School Improvement List and Parental Notification
South Carolina, as many states, does not receive test information
from the test contractor in sufficient time to allow a final school
improvement list to be available prior to the start of school.
Therefore, our State's accountability plan, as approved by the
United States Department of Education (USDE), required the development
of a preliminary school improvement list. The preliminary school
improvement list was disseminated to districts on July 14, 2003.
Districts and schools were required to proceed with notices to parents
of choice and supplemental services options for the current school year
based upon preliminary school improvement identification. Any school
identified for improvement on the preliminary list, but not identified
on the final school improvement list, was required to honor any
commitments made to parents regarding choice and supplemental services
which resulted from the school's preliminary school improvement
identification status.
Final School Improvement List
The districts and schools received final adequate yearly progress
status charts based on the 2003 test results on August 28. Districts
and schools were given time to review their data for accuracy. The
final school improvement list was disseminated to districts on
September 29. Schools and districts were given until October 8 to
question their school improvement status. The school improvement list
is currently being posted to the department's web site.
Number of Schools in School Improvement for the 2003-04 School Year--82
schools total
Number to implement choice only--59 schools
Number to implement choice and supplemental services- 23 schools
Dissemination of School Improvement Requirements to Local Districts
The law, regulations, and guidance documents are posted
on the department's web site.
Districts are sent e-mail updates immediately upon
receipt of any new interpretation of the law, guidance, or information
obtained through attendance at conferences/USDE meetings.
Meetings have been held with districts. An initial
meeting was held with all schools identified for improvement along with
their district staff on April 23, 2002 to inform them of the new choice
and supplemental services requirements, as well as the school
improvement requirements. A follow-up meeting was held on February 20,
2003 to discuss new information and issues related to implementation of
these requirements.
Follow-up calls were made to each of the districts with
schools identified for improvement on a bi-weekly basis for an extended
period of months to determine the progress made in implementing both
choice and supplemental services and to identify any areas of problems
or concerns. Questions/issues were shared with the United States
Department of Education for response as warranted.
Presentations were also made to districts at both a fall
and spring conference to update them on new interpretations of the law.
A meeting was held May 15 and 16, 2003, with the first
day being devoted to an overview of each component of the law,
regulations, and guidance. The second day was spent in small group
concurrent sessions providing hands-on activities and materials to
assist the districts in implementing various new provisions of the law,
specifically choice and supplemental services.
Districts were provided with sample contracts to use for
supplemental services.
New draft guidance on supplemental services was received
on August 22, 2003. A one-day meeting was held with all districts on
September 23, 2003, to present the new guidance and to also discuss the
process for school improvement plan development. At that time,
information was also shared on how to complete a contract with
supplemental service providers and parents.
A training for new Title I Coordinators is also held on
an annual basis.
School Choice
Process - As noted, districts were advised to notify parents of the
choice option based upon the preliminary school improvement list. The
recommended means of notice was by letter and newspaper, at a minimum.
For the 2002-03 School Year:
Numbers of Students Eligible--11,744
Number of Students Opting for Choice--519
Number of Choice Option Schools--32
For the 2003-04 School Year:
Number of Students Eligible--38,463
Number of Students Opting for Choice--1,345
Number of Choice Option Schools--81
Issues and concerns related to choice:
School capacity - Although this is not an exemption for choice, it
still poses a problem that must be considered.
Need for additional staff at receiving schools--With limited State
and local resources, it is difficult to accommodate the staff needs of
the students opting to transfer. Many of the transfer option schools
are not receiving Title I funds.
Concern for comparability among schools - Will the addition of
staff for choice students result in the district not being able to meet
comparability requirements under Title I of the law, whereby state and
local resources must be demonstrated to be at least comparable on a per
pupil expenditure or instructional staff per pupil ratio basis between
Title I and non-Title I schools, or if all schools are Title I served,
then among all Title I schools?
Transportation--Although most of our districts have been able to
establish new bus routes within their current system of operation,
Greenville has been unique in having to lease buses to establish new
routes. A response was received from USDE, after much deliberation,
that a bus could be purchased for transporting choice students.
However, issues for consideration were shared by USDE staff. The issues
were:
How will transportation be supplementary to the
mileage the child would have been entitled to at his regular
school; and
If there is no longer a need for choice
transportation, how will the district dispose of the bus?
This information was shared with the district for their
consideration.
Supplemental Services
For the 2002-03 School Year:
Number of Applications Received: 58
Number of Approved Providers: 30
Number of Approved Providers for Greenville: 5
Number of Students Eligible for Supplemental Services
Statewide--9,662
Number of Students Statewide Receiving Supplemental
Services: 297
For the 2003-04 School Year:
Number of Applications Received: 64
Number of Approved Providers: 25
Number of Approved Providers for Greenville: 6
Number of Students Eligible for Supplemental Services
Statewide--30,921
Number of Students Statewide Receiving Supplemental
Services: Yet to be Determined (Parent meetings and contracts are
underway.)
The South Carolina approval process for providers is an annual
requirement. The rationale for this decision was to ensure the approval
of quality applications. As we have learned more about the requirements
of supplemental services and the challenges presented with
implementation, we have tried to refine the application, rubric for
scoring applications, and the monitoring process to address these
issues.
Monitoring of Supplemental Service Providers
All approved providers for the 2002-03 school year that provided
services to students eligible under this law were monitored. The
monitoring instrument and technical standards were shared with the
provider prior to the review. The monitoring was conducted by a team of
individuals who brought their own expertise to the group. The knowledge
base of the group included knowledge of the law, knowledge of state
content standards, curriculum, and assessments, and/or experience in
the process of audits, including both programmatic and fiscal. The
monitoring was initially conducted by phone interview with the
provider, parents and students served by the provider (to the extent of
their availability), and district Title I coordinators in districts
where services were rendered. A need was also seen for on-site visits
to the providers to review instructional materials and instructional
delivery.
Monitoring included a review of compliance with the approved
application, the contract with the parent and district, the integrity
of the provider, satisfaction of parents and students, as well as other
critical issues. The effectiveness of the provider was not reviewed
this past year since the period of service delivery was limited, as a
result of the mid-year implementation allowed by USDE.
The monitoring results were posted on the department's web site.
Also, monitoring issues were taken into consideration in the new round
of application reviews for approval of providers.
Dissemination of Information to Providers and Parents
Districts were asked to discuss the requirements of the law for
supplemental services with the providers.
General information regarding the law, regulations, and guidance
was shared with providers in the mailing by the State notifying them of
their status as a State-approved provider.
Information has also been posted on the State department's web site
for providers and parents to reference.
Districts were encouraged to go beyond notifying parents of the
opportunity for supplemental services. It was recommended that they
hold meetings at the school level to allow parents to hear
presentations from the approved providers prior to making a selection
of a provider for their child.
This year as part of the application process, the State required a
one-page summary of the provider's services, qualifications, and
demonstrated effectiveness, as required to be disseminated to parents
to aid them in making their selection of provider. This summary page
was lifted directly from the application of all approved providers and
was shared with districts for dissemination to parents.
To date, districts have begun the supplemental services process.
Greenville, for example, has notified parents of their supplemental
services option and they are currently holding school meetings to share
with parents the services of providers, thereby enabling parents to
make informed decisions.
Issues Related to Supplemental Services
Delay of implementation due to choice - As the law is written, the
percent of funds set-aside to implement choice transportation must
first be determined in order to know how much is available to fund
supplemental services. This often delays the implementation of
supplemental services.
Per pupil allocation - Many providers have expressed concern about
the formula used for determining the per-pupil cost rate for the
provision of supplemental services. For-profit providers are often not
willing to provide services for $800 or $900 per child, which is often
the amount available in our State.
Limited willingness to participate in monitoring - We found that
many district staff and parents were hesitant to discuss with us
problems/concerns with providers for fear of a legal challenge from the
for-profit providers.
Use of school facilities - Greenville, for example, has a Board
policy that prevents the use of school facilities by outside groups
after school. Although we have encouraged districts to cooperate with
providers on facility use, and we have shared with them the option to
charge rent of providers, districts are reluctant to allow the use of
their space, often due to liability concerns. One provider has
indicated already that they will not provide services in Greenville
since they cannot offer their services on-site. Another provider has
expressed a similar concern, however, they are attempting to look for a
community partner to house their services. Last year, we had once such
instance in one of our rural areas. As we worked with the provider,
they were able to rent a community space where they could offer
services. We are in the process of contacting the providers that are
having difficulty finding space to see how we might assist them.
Further, we plan to consider including some additional reference to
this in our application.
Providers for rural areas--Only a limited number of providers are
willing to work in rural areas. The for-profit providers do not feel it
is cost efficient for them to travel to those areas. Thus far, distance
learning has not been a solution to this problem. Based on our prior
year's monitoring, we have concerns about both quality of services and
privacy of students with distance learning. However, we are still open
to appropriate distance learning options.
Minimum number of students for service - In some of our large
districts, we are encountering problems with providers that agree to
provide services, but then refuse to go into the district unless they
can provide services to a minimum number of students. Our office tried
to address this problem through the application process this past
review cycle, but we are already beginning to see this issue surface
again.
Required set-aside of funds for choice and supplemental services -
Many districts are concerned about having to withhold up to 20 percent
of their Title I funds for choice and supplemental services. Although
we have shared with them our most recent information from USDE which
allows them to reallocate the funds around early November after they
have implemented these components of the law, it is difficult for the
district to reallocate those funds in a meaningful way to benefit their
schools at that time. It is too late to consider serving additional
schools. In the recent guidance on supplemental services, a provision
allows the use of other fund sources to meet the 20 percent
requirement. This information was shared with districts at a meeting
last month. The provision may offer relief for some districts, but not
all because state and local funds are limited. Additionally, districts
are faced with having to expend Title I funds in a timely manner in
order to meet the 15 percent carryover provision of the law. Failure to
meet this requirement will result in the loss of any excess funds above
the allowed 15 percent.
In closing, South Carolina initiated implementation of supplemental
services and choice based upon our best knowledge and understanding of
the law. We have worked through many of the issues related to choice,
and we are anxiously awaiting the release of new guidance on choice in
hopes that it will offer further insight into implementation. As for
supplemental services, we began the process with a three page
application for providers, based solely on the law. Now, we have a
comprehensive 15 page application which reflects the latest guidance
and seeks to address some of the issues that surfaced in our initial
implementation of supplemental services. There are many issues that we
are only beginning to learn about, and we are facing each new challenge
as a learning opportunity that will help us to better serve our
children.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions you or the other Members may have.
______
Mr. DeMint. Thank you for your input. We will get back to
you with questions in just a moment. Thank you.
I now want to introduce Dr. Bill Harner. He is currently in
his third year as the Superintendent of Schools--Greenville
County Schools--
Dr. Harner. Congressman, fourth year.
Mr. DeMint. Fourth year.
Dr. Harner. Time goes by.
Mr. DeMint. This is an old resume. OK, Greenville County
School District is the 64th largest school district in the
Nation and the largest school district in South Carolina. Dr.
Harner retired from the U.S. Army in 1998 as a lieutenant
colonel and later become a faculty member at the United States
Military Academy at West Point serving as a cadet performance
counselor, a leadership in character education instructor and
an aide de camp of the superintendent at West Point. Dr.
Harner.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. HARNER, SUPERINTENDENT, GREENVILLE
COUNTY SCHOOLS
Dr. Harner. Good morning, Congressman DeMint and welcome to
Greenville, Congressman Carter. It is a lovely place. I
understand you came here last evening. Hopefully you will get a
chance to get around and see our county and the upstate. It is
gorgeous. Also, welcome to Greenville County public schools.
In Greenville County, as the Congressman talked about, we
have 63,000 students--a little bit over 63,000 students in 90
schools and centers. About 30 percent of our students come from
poverty as prescribed by Title I provisions. Also here at
Brushy Creek, this is--as you can tell, it is a relatively
brand new school. I think we are in our second full year of
operation. Before it was a brand new school when it was on the
property right where the parking lot is, it was awarded the
National Blue Ribbon of Excellence as a Blue Ribbon school. It
is an excellent school on the state report card and also most
recently made AYP. One of 14 schools in Greenville County,
about 22 percent of our elementary schools. We have 50
elementary schools in the county.
This morning you asked me to talk about the No Child Left
Behind Act, and specifically school choice and supplemental
services and how those provisions of the Act are affecting
Greenville County schools.
First off, choice is not a foreign concept to Greenville
County. We have had prior to the No Child Left Behind Act 8200
students on school choice prescribed through magnet school
programs and parent options to go to--have their child in
another school.
Also, prior to the No Child Left Behind Act three of the 12
charter schools in South Carolina were approved by the Board
and are in Greenville County. That is 25 percent right now, and
the Board last month approved two more charter schools. So we
will have a little bit more than 25 percent. So school choice
is rife and well-supported by the Board of Trustees in
Greenville County along with the No Child Left Behind Act.
Last year, the first year we were required to offer school
choice under the Federal provisions, we had four schools
identified, two elementary and two middle schools--Hollis,
Monaview Elementaries, Lakeview and Parker Middle. We were
required to offer choice of those schools. Of the 1600 possible
students eligible to transfer from these four schools only 140
students exercised their option and went to other schools
within the district. Our spirit and intent of following the
provisions of No Child Left Behind Act are to offer excellent
schools. So they are--we offer those schools at both the
elementary and the middle level.
This year four more schools were identified, so now we have
a total of eight. They are three more elementary schools and
one middle school, Cone/San Souci, East North Street, Sirrine
Elementary School and Tanglewood. I would like to note that at
East North Street, it is a magnet school for the science and
technologies. When I arrived in the county, they only had 13
magnet students. This year they have over 200 magnet students
that are opting into this Title I school.
Also, at Tanglewood Middle School--which thank you to the
Education Committee--it received a $778,000 grant for the arts,
which integrated the arts through the curriculum at Tanglewood.
It went from a student population--or a teacher population of
27 percent content trained to 85 percent content trained, and
this past year on the pact--in the math pact they had a 16-
percent growth for sixth graders, 20 percent for the seventh
graders and 14 percent growth for the eighth graders. The
school district average increase was 5.3 percent and the state
growth, I believe, was right around 4 percent for math. I am
checking my numbers with the state.
Of the about 3000 students eligible for school choice this
past year, 228 have opted to attend another school in addition
to the students continuing from the first year. What we are
also finding is a lot of students are going back to their home-
base school because of all the services that we offer at the
home-base school, the Title I school, versus the excellent
school.
Transportation. To transport these students last year we
spent approximately $30,000. This year the costs are estimated
to be a little bit more than $80,000, and that is for leasing
four buses. We would like to purchase buses using Title I
funds, as you heard from Wanda a little bit ago. However, the
State Department of Education has advised that the Federal
regulations do not allow this, by the way. I just heard this
modification, so I am excited. In addition, Title I funding for
transportation can only be used for mileage for transporting
choice students from their base school to the receiving school.
We would like this mileage to be payable from the bus driver's
point of origination. It is not feasible for choice students to
travel via a regular bus route to their base school and then be
transported to their choice school via Title I bus route,
because it puts the student on the bus probably double the
time, if not more.
Receiving schools. About the schools receiving choice
students such as Brushy Creek here, additional resources for
choice students such as class size reduction efforts or
supplemental support materials cannot be funded through Title I
for non-Title I schools receiving transferring choice students.
Yet the receiving schools are the ones facing the challenge of
helping transferring students to achieve better results than
they had at their home-base school. The No Child Left Behind
Act provides no resources to assist the former Title I students
who elect to transfer, and that is something that we have
talked to Congressman DeMint and other members of our South
Carolina delegation about, asking for flexibility.
What we have in Greenville County, the operating dollars,
the local and state dollars that fund our operating costs,
travel with the student and the Title I dollars stay at the
home-base school. One thing we would like is to have that
flexibility.
This year none of our middle schools met AYP. None of our
middle schools met AYP, though we have one excellent middle
school and several good middle schools. Even the school that
fed the middle school that fed into Riverside High School which
has the top SAT score in the state--the average for the past--
the class of 2003, it did not make AYP. As a consequence of
this, we faced a future possibility of not having receiving
school options for middle grades. Next year there will not be
any choice options to students because we do not have any
schools that made AYP at the middle school level. With
neighboring districts in the same shape, they are not in any
position to help us through an agreement for choice. With no
receiving schools available, each Title I middle school student
in Greenville County will eventually have to be offered
supplemental services. This is an issue more tied to AYP, which
is a topic obviously not for today.
Supplemental services. Last year in the first year of
offering supplemental services notices were mailed to parents
of the approximate 1600 students in those four schools.
Participation by parents selecting supplemental services were
minimal at best. Although a core group initially responded,
only four student continued in the program from its inception
until the end of the school year.
Mr. DeMint. Dr. Harner, I need to ask you to wrap up in
just a few seconds and we will get back to you. We are over 6
minutes.
Dr. Harner. OK, sir. Thank you, sir.
Notice to parents. We believe we have gone more than the
spirit and the intent of the No Child Left Behind Act. Our
communications is in writing. It is through the media, through
advertisements.
I guess I will just close it there. We have already
submitted our statement. Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Harner follows:]
Statement of Dr. William E. Harner, Superintendent, Greenville County
Schools
Good Morning. I'm Dr. William Harner, Superintendent of
Greenville County Schools. It's good to see you, Congressman DeMint.
Congressman Carter, welcome to Greenville. And welcome, both of you, to
Brushy Creek Elementary.
This morning you've asked me to talk to you about the
Choice and Supplemental Services components of No Child Left Behind and
how those provisions of the Act are playing out in Greenville County
Schools.
CHOICE
Background . . .
Last year--the first year we were required to offer
choice, we had 4 schools--2 elementary and 2 middle--(Hollis,
Monaview, Lakeview, Parker) required to offer choice.
Of about 1,600 students eligible to transfer from
these 4 schools, approximately 140 exercised their option and
went to other schools in the district.
This year, we have 8 schools offering choice--the
four from last year, plus 3 more elementary and 1 more middle
(Cone/San Souci, E. North Street, Sirrine, Tanglewood).
Of about 3,000 students eligible for choice this
year, 228 have opted to attend another school.
Transportation . . .
To transport these students last year, we spent
approximately $30,000. This year, those costs are estimated to
be more than $80,000. That is for 4 bus leases.
We've requested permission from the State
Department of Education to purchase a limited number of
buses to be used specifically for choice transportation,
but federal regulations have prevented us from doing so.
This is important to us . . . a child exercising
his legal right to choose another school should not be
forced to spend hours on a bus going to and from school
each day. Clearly this is not in a child's best interest
and does not fulfill the academic purpose of NCLB.
Receiving schools . . .
About the schools receiving choice students . . .
Additional resources for choice students, such as class size
reduction efforts or supplemental support materials, cannot be
funded through Title I for non-Title I schools receiving
transferring choice students. Yet, the receiving schools are
the ones facing the challenge of helping transferring students
to achieve better.
NCLB provides no resources to assist former Title
I students who elect to transfer to non-Title I schools.
Flexibility of Title I funding does not address
this issue.
One thing we'd like to see done which would help
these receiving schools would be to allow Title I funds to
follow teachers excessed from Title I schools.
This year, none of our middle schools met AYP, even
though many of them have earned state and national academic
distinctions.
As a consequence of this, we face the future
possibility of not having receiving school options for middle
grades.
With neighboring districts in the same shape, they're
not in any position to help us out through an agreement for
choice.
With no receiving school available, will each middle
school student in Greenville County have to be offered
supplemental services?
This is an issue more tied to AYP . . . which is
a topic for another day. But it is something that must be
addressed.
SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES
Last year, in the first year of offering supplemental
services, notices were mailed to parents of approximately 1,600
eligible students (Hollis, Monaview, and Parker).
Participation by parents selecting supplemental services
was minimal, at best.
Although a core group initially responded, only 4
students continued in the program from its inception to the end
of the school year.
We believe this low participation was due to several
factors, including:
The newness of NCLB and late start in the school
year;
The fact that our schools already offer many
programs through the state Education Accountability Act,
Title I, fee-based and local community partnerships;
The fact that except for fee-based programs, all
are provide free to the parents; and
The fact that after school programs are
convenient. Parents do not have to provide transportation
(but they do for supplemental services). ``After school''
programs are just that--after school. Supplemental services
often occur in the late afternoon or early evening.
Last year, providers included Sylvan, Communities in
Schools, City of Greenville Recreation Department and Cyber
Study 101.
Of these providers, this year, only Sylvan
reapplied to be a provider.
Greenville County Schools is also an approved
provider this year. Others include the Learning Academy of
Fountain Inn and Sylvan.
Out-of-state providers dropped out because of
lack of local company contacts or because of facility
needs.
NOTICE TO PARENTS
The title of your presentation asks: Are states and
school districts giving parents the information they need?
I believe Greenville County Schools is giving far more
than they need; in fact, I don't believe there is anything more we can
do to notify parents of their right to choice or supplemental services.
Last year, we mailed approximately 1,600 notices of
supplemental services to parents of 3 schools required to offer
the services.
Additionally, the district advertised the
availability of supplemental services in the newspaper, on
the Internet, and on the school district's cable TV
channel.
Principals also advertised the availability of
services.
On 4 different dates in March and April, meetings
were held at the district's central office and at schools
with parents, school personnel and providers. (Late start
last year due to it being the first year NCLB required
supplemental services. The district took action as
information was shared with it.)
This year, just a couple of weeks ago, approximately
1,600 notices went out. (Schools: Hollis, Monaview, Parker, +
Lakeview)
Official notice packets were mailed in English
and Spanish.
Principals are also using Phone Master, flyers
and marquee announcements to inform the public.
Last week, we had a paid public notice in the
Greenville News listing all the locations and times of
meetings.
Announcements are on the web and district TV
again this year.
We've already had 4 Title I parent and provider
meetings: two on October 13th and two on the 16th.
We have one scheduled for tomorrow evening
(Hollis), and one for next Tuesday (Parker).
At these meetings, providers of supplemental
services are available to explain their methods of
delivering services.
Are we giving parents enough information?
I want to share with you our experience at one school
offering supplemental services. (Lakeview)
At a meeting on supplemental services scheduled
for October 13th, 1 parent showed up. At a 2nd meeting
later that evening, 5 were there.
Because the school had received phone calls
inquiring about the notification letter, however, a 3rd
meeting was planned.
This meeting will be at the school's PTA dinner
meeting tomorrow night.
Are we doing enough?
We will hold as many meetings as needed at each
school to inform parents and address their concerns.
Our philosophy is to go beyond the law's
requirements to inform parents.
However, supplemental services is not a new
concept to Greenville County Schools: for some time, we
have had in place many programs that offer services for
students as well as parents.
We're giving everything a parent needs to
consider in order to determine what is best for their
child. And many of those parents are determining that the
school their child is in--the very one that has not met AYP
and thus, been labeled ``failing'' by the media--is the one
that has the most resources--financial and people--to help
their child achieve his or her best.
Our biggest issue: the late notice school districts
receive from the state on which schools are required to offer choice
and supplemental services.
DO I BELIEVE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND IS WORKING?
Greenville County Schools is committed to the academic
excellence and overall well being of every child.
And to the extent that No Child Left Behind helps us to
achieve these goals, we applaud No Child Left Behind.
We have a lot of concerns about tomorrow . . . where
we'll be as the requirements continue to ratchet up. But we will
continue to do all that we can with what we have--trying to be creative
in order to get the most bang for our buck--to meet those goals.
______
Mr. DeMint. OK. We will get back to you.
Now, I would like to move to Mr. Waggoner. Mr. Waggoner is
the father of six children. His youngest daughter, Jessica, is
a sixth grade student in her second year of experience public
school choice. Mr. Waggoner is a retired technology sergeant
from the United States Air Force and has recently returned to
school to further his skills in computer networking and
technology.
Mr. Waggoner.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE WAGGONER, PARENT, RETIRED TECH SERGEANT,
U.S. AIR FORCE
Mr. Waggoner. Well first, I would like to say it is just an
honor to be here among all of these great minds and just to see
the effort from the Federal level down to the state and the
county. It is wonderful.
Last year Jessica had a choice to change from Hollis
Elementary to Armstrong Elementary. That change was great for
Jessie. We enjoyed it and she enjoyed it. Mrs. Baker was her
teacher and really knows her stuff, just phenomenal.
This year Jessica would have gone to Parker Middle, but we
did have a choice of Riverside or Northwood Middle. My wife
Linda and I went to both schools to see how they looked. The
day we received the notification, as a matter of fact, our
daughter was out of town that weekend. Then when she got back,
we took Jessie to both schools and we even had a tag-along,
Channel 7 was with us. So we had a little notoriety also.
This year we did want Jessica to have a say as far as which
school. Last year we thought she was so young that we made the
decision for her. So because she is 11 years old and going into
sixth grade, we thought that would be good.
All three of us, my wife, I and her picked Northwood
Middle. It seemed to be, first, the closest. Also, it just
seemed to be the--I will put it this way, the friendliest as
far as the teachers, staff and all of those. She takes a bus to
school. One of the things that we had a concern about was how
long the bus ride would be. When they have to get up at four or
five in the morning to catch a bus at six to get to school it
starts getting to be a pretty long day. Not to slam the school
district too much, but the first 2 weeks she got home at 7 p.m.
The first day I had to even threaten to call the sheriff
because I did not know where my daughter was.
The first week, we took her to school four out of the 5
days. The bus somehow missed us. They did get another bus from
Columbia and now she gets home before five o'clock. So that was
a concern. It is much better now.
One of the interesting things about all of this was Cindy
Landrum, I received a call from her. She works for the
Greenville News. This was 2 years ago. And she wanted to know
what my wife and I thought about the possibility of our
daughter going from Hollis to a different elementary school. We
had not hear anything about it. Finally we got a notification a
couple of weeks later. One of the things that seems to be a
problem still is the way the school district does the
addresses. We do not get all of the correspondence. We missed
both open house greetings. We got to go to the open houses, but
it was because of Cindy, not because of the letters that we did
not get. We are not really sure why that happens. I have got
here that it might be the Jutson Mill after our 4th Avenue,
since there are about four 4th Avenues in Greenville. Somehow
they cannot find us all the time.
I put we want every parent--or we want what every parent
wants for their children, good schools with great teachers.
Most of the schools out there are that. A little footnote. I
think a lot of the time that the school does not get rated as
well, it has to do with a language barrier problem more so than
any learning disability. So that is something that they
probably need to contend with all the way up to the Federal
Government area.
I would like to see 20 students or less per class. I think
all of us would as parents. With the budget cuts, again, I know
that is really tough. So I just have to say that I think our
school districts are doing phenomenal for what they are working
with.
I put that I think this program is working and to hold the
schools and teachers and the students accountable is incredible
and wonderful and needs to happen.
I would like Jessie to attend college and feel good about
her education and herself. She has asked why South Carolina is
almost last in the Nation with test scores. She seen that on TV
and said what does that mean for me? What will that do down the
road?
If I have time, it says, as a side note, my mother is dying
from lung cancer, she lives in California. I would like to go
out there and be with her for her last final days. I do not
know how long that will be. My wife would like to come along so
we could still be part of a family. We do not feel that we
could transfer our daughter, Jessica, out there for any length
of time because she would have to drop back either one or two
grades, because of the school system differences. That would be
nice to have rectified. So if it happens, I will have to go
live out in California probably for 6 months without my family
being there.
But this is to say that Jessica does get better choices in
the school she attends. And I said, could we have the
information sooner? I certainly hope so. Can the school
district get my address correct? I do not know. It would be
nice. The neat thing is, the test scores are going up every
year. So thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Waggoner follows:]
Statement of George L. Waggoner, Parent, Greenville, South Carolina
Last year Jessica had the choice to change from Hollis Elementary
to Armstrong Elementary School. That change was great for Jessie. Mrs.
Baker was her teacher and really knows her stuff.
This year Jessica would have gone to Parker Middle School, but we
had a choice of Riverside or Northwood Middle. My wife Linda and I went
to both new schools to see how far away and how they looked. We
received the notice on a Saturday and our daughter was out of town. We
then went with Jessica to both schools and talked to teachers and had a
tour of each school. We wanted Jessie to have a say this year, as she
is now 11 years old and going into sixth grade.
We picked Northwood Middle School as the best and closest school.
Jessie takes the bus and the first two weeks she got home about 7 pm
and they missed picking her and another girl up 4 out of 5 days the
first week in the morning. They got another bus from Columbia and now
she gets home about 5 pm or sooner.
I received a call from Cindy Landrum who works for the ``Greenville
News'' and had a list of children who were getting a chance to change
schools, and wanted to know what Linda and I thought about that. That
was about one week before we received any notification from the school
district last year and again this year. She also told us about the open
house that we never got any news about. When we talked to Mrs. Goggins,
the Armstrong Elementary School principal at the open house she said
our notice came back to the school. That is when we found out the
school district will not use our correct address, and sometimes we
don't get what they send out. Something about the ``Judson'' after 4th
Ave. Greenville has 4 4th Ave. so it can be a problem for the mail.
We want what every parent wants for there children!! Good schools
with great teachers. About 20 students or less per class would be
great. And enough resources to help during the rough times. Jessie
needed help in math and got tutored twice a week for a while with
Furman students and Mrs. Baker.
I think the program is working, to hold schools and teachers and
students accountable!!!
We would love for Jessie to attend college and to feel good about
her education and herself. She has asked why South Carolina is almost
last in the nation with the test scores, and what that will do to her
down the road.
As a side note, my mother is dying from lung cancer and lives in
California. I want to be with her in her final days. My wife would come
along too, but we know if we transferred Jessica out there, she would
be placed in 4th or 5th grade. The schools are ``advanced'' there. I
will go live in California, and the rest of the family will stay
here!!!
All this is to say we are very excited that Jessica does get better
choices in which school she attends. Could we have the information
sooner? I would hope so! Can the school district get my address
correct? Maybe! I think they are doing a good job. The test scores are
going up each year.
Thank you.
______
Mr. DeMint. Mr. Waggoner, thank you so much for your
testimony.
Now we will move to Dr. Dana Jeffrey. Dr. Jeffrey is the
Vice President of Sales at Lightspan, a supplemental service
provider approved by the state of South Carolina. Previously
Dr. Jeffrey was the Executive Director of the Human Resource
Services and Organizational Development for Adams County School
District 50, a major urban/suburban school district in
Colorado. Dr. Jeffrey has over 23 years of experience in the
education field as a teacher, district curriculum and public
relations coordinator and district administrator.
Again, I remind our witnesses to try to keep it to around 5
minutes. So, Dr. Jeffrey.
STATEMENT OF DANA JEFFREY, VICE PRESIDENT OF STRATEGIC SALES,
LIGHTSPAN
Dr. Jeffrey. Congressman DeMint, Congressman Carter, thank
you very much for the opportunity to testify on this important
subject today.
My name is Dana Marie Jeffrey and I am here today as a
representative of Lightspan, Inc., an approved supplemental
educational services provider for South Carolina and 23 other
states as of this date. We are pleased to have the opportunity
to work with schools throughout the United States in providing
a comprehensive program for supplemental educational services.
Our model includes tutorial services and program management
using the same curriculum and instructional resources provided
to more than 4700 elementary schools using Lightspan content in
the classroom and in students' homes to support student
achievement.
In the same way we provide professional development and
training to teachers and paraprofessionals during the regular
school day we also provide the exact same to private tutors,
faith-based organizations and school districts using our
content to deliver supplemental educational services. When we
decided to enter this sector, we purposefully implemented a
service delivery model that would embrace community-based
organizations engaged in meeting the needs of eligible students
as part of this important initiative.
As a service provider we are dependent upon cooperation
from the local education agency to utilize school-owned
facilities since we do not have available to us across the
Nation storefront facilities to which parents can bring their
children for tutoring. And even if we did, the local school is
generally the most convenient for parents as well, thus
becoming an important consideration in our serve delivery
model.
Over the 10 years of our existence, Lightspan has a
tradition of extensive parent communication and training
associated with our program delivery. Lightspan has worked with
parents since our founding. Thus, it was a natural for us to
become a provider of supplemental educational services. With
each program delivery we work closely with the school district
and local school staff to ensure that the program supports
local learning priorities of the regular school-day program and
that the delivery of services will be provided according to a
schedule that will most effectively utilize school resources
and facilities.
We also provide local education agencies with
communications that explain Lightspan's program for parent
review in selecting providers. And, in fact, we have even
assisted local school districts in developing communication
pieces to promote the availability of supplemental educational
services.
In addition, Lightspan continually strives to involve
partners in the delivery of services at the local school site
or in locations such as after-school centers, churches or other
approved locations. These alternatives ensure the opportunity
to offer quality programming as close to home as possible,
making it possible for parents without reliable transportation
to be able to again gain access to the tutoring program. As an
experienced educational services provider, we recognize the
importance of not only providing engaging learning activities
that are individualized to meet the needs of each child, but
also providing services that extend the learning day in the
most convenient way possible.
Lightspan's supplemental educational services programs are
research-based, one of the major requirements of the
legislation. We have more than 1000 school-based case studies,
including a series of scientifically based longitudinal studies
conducted by independent evaluators demonstrating Lightspan's
success in providing programs that support increased student
achievement.
Finally, we hire qualified tutors locally for each program,
ensuring that all tutors are experienced educators. Again, this
is an important requirement of the legislation.
As noted earlier, Lightspan has been approved in 24 states,
including the District of Columbia, as of this date for
supplemental educational services. We have yet to be approved
in the remaining states, although we have applications
currently under review for approval in six additional states.
While for the most part we have been satisfied with the
approval process in the states, I must note with a certain
amount of puzzlement that requirements for approval are
inconsistent from state to state--despite the fact that most
states utilize a common application as the basis for their
state-specific application, and Lightspan answers to the same
questions on each application.
Local decisionmaking is an important consideration for all
providers in designing and delivering services. Lightspan does
not have a one-size-fits-all model. For example, we are
currently working with at least five to seven districts in the
state of South Carolina alone to identify and define possible
implementations to meet local needs. We have designed our
programs and services to meet the rigorous review of each state
in the nation, and having been approved in 24 states, we would
argue that we are a proven model and should be approved in the
remaining 26.
We are pleased to be offering programs and services in the
supplemental educational services arena, as yet another way in
which Lightspan may work with local school districts to meet
the needs of underachieving students. Intensive tutorial
support designed to provide supplemental services support for
each student, coupled with proven instructional tools and
training for the classroom teacher provides the most effective
investment in quality schools.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Jeffrey follows:]
Testimony of Dana Marie Jeffrey, Ph.D., Vice President, Strategic
Sales, Lightspan, Inc.
Congressman DeMint and Congressman Carter:
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify on this
important subject today. My name is Dana Marie Jeffrey and I am here
today as a representative of Lightspan, Inc., an approved Supplemental
Educational Services provider for South Carolina and 23 other states as
of this date.
We are pleased to have the opportunity to work with schools
throughout the United States in providing a comprehensive program for
Supplemental Educational Services. Our model includes tutorial services
and program management using the same curriculum and instructional
resources provided to the more than 4,700 elementary schools using
Lightspan content in the classroom and in students'' homes to support
teachers'' delivery of educational services. In the same way we provide
professional development and training to teachers and paraprofessionals
during the regular school day, we also provide the exact same to
private tutors, faith-based organizations, and school districts using
our content to deliver Supplemental Educational Services. When we
decided to enter this sector, we purposefully implemented a service
delivery model that would embrace community-based organizations engaged
in meeting the needs of eligible students as part of this important
initiative.
As a service provider, we are dependent upon cooperation from the
local education agency to utilize school-owned facilities since we do
not have available to us across the nation storefront facilities to
which parents can bring their children for tutoring. And, even if we
did, the local school is generally the most convenient for parents as
well, thus becoming an important consideration in our service delivery
design. Over the 10 years of our existence, Lightspan has a tradition
of extensive parent communication and training associated with our
program delivery. Lightspan has worked with parents since our founding.
Thus, it was a natural for us to become a provider of Supplemental
Educational Services. With each program delivery, we work closely with
the school district and local school staff to ensure that the program
supports local learning priorities of the regular school program and
that the delivery of services will be provided according to a schedule
that will most effectively utilize school facilities. We also provide
local education agencies with communications that explain Lightspan's
program for parent review in selecting providers. And, in fact, we have
even assisted local school districts in developing communications
pieces to promote the availability of Supplemental Educational
Services.
In addition, Lightspan continually strives to involve partners in
the delivery of services at the local school site or in locations such
as afterschool centers, churches, or other approved locations. These
alternatives ensure the opportunity to offer quality programming as
close to home as possible making it possible for parents without
reliable transportation to be able to gain access to the tutoring
program. As an experienced educational services provider, we recognize
the importance of not only providing engaging learning activities that
are individualized to meet the needs of each child, but also providing
services that extend the learning day in the most convenient way
possible to ensure that students--and parents--take advantage of
extended opportunities for learning.
Lightspan's Supplemental Educational Services programs are
research-based, one of the major requirements of the legislation. We
have more than 1,000 school-based case studies, including a series of
scientifically-based longitudinal studies conducted by independent
evaluators, demonstrating Lightspan's success in providing programs
that support increased student achievement, another important
requirement of the legislation incorporated in state applications.
Finally, we hire qualified tutors locally for each program, ensuring
that all tutors are experienced educators. Again, this is an important
requirement of the legislation designed to ensure quality program
delivery.
As noted earlier, Lightspan has been approved in 24 states,
including the District of Columbia, as of this date for Supplemental
Educational Services. We have yet to be approved in the remaining
states although we have applications currently under review for
approval in six states. While for the most part we have been satisified
with the approval process in the states, I must note with a certain
amount of puzzlement that requirements for approval are inconsistent
from state to state, despite the fact that most states utilize a common
application form as the basis for their state-specific application and
Lightspan answers to the same questions do not vary from state-to-
state.
Local decision making, both at the state level and the school
district level, regarding Supplemental Educational Services is an
important consideration for all providers in designing and delivering
services. Lightspan does not have a ``one size fits all'' model. For
example, we are currently working with at least five to seven districts
in the state of South Carolina alone to identify and define possible
implementations to meet local needs. We have designed our programs and
services to meet the rigorous review of each state in the nation.
Having been approved in 24 states, we would argue we are a proven model
that should be made available to the students in the remaining 26
states and territories. Our interest is in working to meet the needs of
eligible students in the most comprehensive manner possible.
We are pleased to be offering programs and services in the
Supplemental Educational Services arena as yet another way in which
Lightspan may work with school districts to meet the needs of
underperforming students. As the most frequently used technology-based
Comprehensive School Reform model in the nation, Lightspan is an
experienced partner in supporting school improvement. When we depart a
district after having fulfilled a Supplemental Educational Services
contract, our tutors leave but our proven, standards-based reading,
language arts, and mathematics curriculum remains behind as the
property of the local education agency thus providing an important
technology resource for continued use in district classroom and by the
children and families in their homes. Our training models are designed
to support the classroom teacher in not only providing resources for
extended learning in the classroom but also extending learning to the
home. The flexibility of the Lightspan program not only enhances
afterschool learning programs for students, but also provides important
instructional tools for teachers for long-term classroom use. Intensive
tutorial support designed to provide supplemental services support for
the student, coupled with proven instructional tools and training for
the classroom teacher, provides the most effective investment in
quality schools.
______
Mr. DeMint. Thank you, Dr. Jeffrey.
Let us begin with some questions. I will start back with
Mrs. Rushing-Jones. You mentioned in your testimony the
contractors--the test contractors' failure to provide timely
assessment information, and that is something we have heard a
lot, that the scores were not available to the district. The
district could not notify the parents in time. Do you expect
this to change? Is something being done to make sure that
scores are available sooner so that parents can have that
information sooner?
Mrs. Rushing-Jones. There is always hope, but it does not
seem that that is going to be likely the situation even next
year. So we may again be faced with moving forward with
preliminary school improvement identification and
implementation accordingly.
Mr. DeMint. So you do not expect parents to get the
information until school starts basically?
Mrs. Rushing-Jones. We send notice to parents based upon
that preliminary school improvement identification status, and
that was prior to our test results coming back, and that did
allow us to notify the parents prior to the beginning of
school, and parents were able to know that their choice was
going to be honored even if the school was not identified for
school improvement in the final school improvement process.
Mr. DeMint. There seems to be across the state a wide
variation of how communication about supplemental services are
actually communicated. Does your department actually meet face-
to-face with parents? How does that work at the school district
level? How many face-to-face meetings are there with parents
about the available services, the transportation and those
types of things?
Mrs. Rushing-Jones. I can certainly say it has not been
face-to-face, but I have been on the phone quite a bit and have
been very willing and happy to talk with any of the parents
with questions. There has been an interest, of course, and
interest is continuing to increase from parents because they do
want the best for their children, and we guide them through
what choices they do have within each individual school
district because each options of course are different.
Mr. DeMint. Well how would a parent determine whether to
call the school district or to call you about that? I mean is
that something they--do they give up on the school district and
call the state directly or do they start with you? How does
that work?
Mrs. Rushing-Jones. They start initially with the school
district because the district is the one sending them the
letter notice.
Mr. DeMint. Right. Is your telephone number on that letter
generally, do you know?
Mrs. Rushing-Jones. It is not.
Mr. DeMint. OK. So they have to kind of work to find out
how to get in touch with you on that?
Mrs. Rushing-Jones. My number is pretty well known.
Mr. DeMint. OK.
Mrs. Rushing-Jones. But you are right. It is a district
component because it is communicated within each district.
Mr. DeMint. OK. Did the--the test contractors, have they
told you they cannot do it next year, but they can improve it
the year after or is it a matter of when the state actually
administers the test or when the different school districts
administer the tests?
Ms. Lindsay. I can answer that question.
Mrs. Rushing-Jones. Is it appropriate that she answers the
question?
Mr. DeMint. If you do not mind submitting that just for the
record, any clarification just in writing, that would be
wonderful.
Dr. Harner, let me switch the questioning here. Over the
last couple of years Title I funding in the Greenville County
schools has increased almost $6 million, from $6.7 million in
the 2001 year to about 12.5 million now. Yet, I think in your
testimony the suggestion is there is really not enough Title I
funding to make this choice and supplemental services work
effectively. If you could just address that, because part of
this whole No Child Left Behind came with large increases in
funding to the state and local school districts, and we want to
make sure it is getting to the right place and that it is
really happening.
The second part of that question does go back to how Title
I dollars move with the students, and you said again in your
testimony that the Title I dollars do not go with the student.
Yet my understanding is, unless the school does not qualify for
Title I funds, and that would mean they have what, less than 10
students? How many schools could that apply to in effect? Let
us just talk a little about Title I, the total increases and
how the money moves around.
Dr. Harner. Currently, sir, this past year we had about a
32 percent increase, which was one of the large--of the large
districts in the country, I think we had the greatest increase
this past year. So we are very grateful for that money. A lot
of that money has to be kept in escrow for school choice, and
we have about 2 million--a little bit over $2 million in escrow
that we cannot spend, that we are given, but we cannot spend it
until the end of the year because it is held in escrow because
of the provisions of the regulation, which kind of does not
make sense. It does not make a lot of sense.
The other thing is, you are looking for solutions, you are
not looking for bandaids. We have IDEA and Title I, you should
be looking at it hand and glove. In Greenville County we have
over 10,500 students that are special-need students. About half
of them are learning disabled. In other words, we did not get
them early enough into the system, like in the 4-K program,
which we are gradually getting fixed, and we have probably one
of the best 4-K programs in the country, but it is all through
special-revenue dollars provided by the state and state
resources. But if we can get that flexibility in Title I into
the 4-K area and do a lot of work--we tried that and--we did
that last year, as a matter of fact, for funding for a program
here of special-need students in this school.
Mr. DeMint. You are combining IDEA and Title I, but I need
to understand what we need to fix about the law.
Dr. Harner. OK, what you need to fix about the--one is--in
the current Title I provision is giving the superintendents the
flexibility--boards the flexibility of having the money travel
with the student to their receiving school. That has got to be
a priority--a top priority.
Mr. DeMint. I understand that that happens unless the
receiving school just does not qualify.
Dr. Harner. Correct. And I believe that like Riverside
Middle, the population there is about 9 percent--nine percent
poverty. So they were not even close to getting anything
substantial from the state or from the Federal Government.
Mr. DeMint. The Title I dollars can help with the
transportation.
Dr. Harner. That is all they provide for.
Mr. DeMint. Right.
Dr. Harner. They do not help for the remediation of the
student, bringing that student up to where they need to be.
Mr. DeMint. Do you know how many schools that you have that
would qualify for the choice--the transfer that do not qualify
for Title I?
Dr. Harner. Oh, all of them--all of them. We have
Armstrong, Brushy Creek, Lake Forest, Bethel, Oakview, all
outstanding schools, and five--four of the five are excellent
schools on the state report card. These are great schools and--
Mr. DeMint. And they do not qualify for Title I funding?
Dr. Harner. Correct, sir.
Mr. DeMint. OK.
Dr. Jeffrey, just a quick question. South Carolina. I just
need to get your impression of the cooperation that you are
getting from school districts in our state as far as providing
supplemental services, getting information out to parents.
Again, it sounds like there is a lot of variation when
supplemental services, or the choice programs came up in
Charleston and hundreds of parents attended an information
meeting and in Greenville only a few. I do not know if it is
the difference in the--I cannot imagine that much difference in
Charleston and Greenville on the issue, so there must be
something about the information, the way we communicate, or
generally how the school districts are cooperating with
providers like yourself. What is your impression of South
Carolina and how South Carolina as a state is working with
providers for supplemental services?
Ms. Jeffrey. First of all, I think the state department in
California has been exceptional in terms of communicating
information to school districts about supplemental services.
Mr. DeMint. That is California?
Dr. Jeffrey. Did I say California? I am sorry. We are based
in California. The state of South Carolina, excuse me, has been
exceptional. They have communicated exceedingly in terms of
telling school districts about the availability of providers,
etc. So looking at that on a national basis, I think South
Carolina has been truly exceptional.
In terms of school districts it does vary from district to
district in terms of how they communicate with parents and the
communication we have, you know, coming from the school
district to us. And I think a lot of it has to do with how it
is being implemented in the local area. It has to do with the
number of schools perhaps that qualify, the number of students
that they are going to be serving, etc. So it varies from
location to location, that is true.
Mr. DeMint. Let me just jump back to Dr. Harner. One of the
things I have heard, Dr. Harner, is--I guess Greenville as a
larger school district, perhaps has more of the capabilities to
offer some of these supplemental services internally. One of
the things that we want to happen from this bill is for parents
to have a lot of choices. Could you tell me what the, I guess
perspective of the Greenville County School District is toward
outside supplemental services and the cooperation with those
services to make sure parents know about them, and how are we
doing that? How are we making parents aware of the different
services that might be available versus the services you might
offer internally that are supplemental?
Dr. Harner. Right now we are partners with Dr. Jeffrey's
program. We have four of our schools right now, Parker Middle,
Lakeview Middle, Hollis and Monaview that have students
enrolled with their programs. Also with the Learning Academy,
and then we have a lot of our own school--after-school programs
that provide services. We also have the 21st Century grant, as
you remember.
Mr. DeMint. Right.
Dr. Harner. You helped bring the resources to do that here
and it is partnering with the communities and schools and the
Urban League.
Mr. DeMint. Excellent. I will yield to my colleague for
some additional questions.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.
Mrs. Rushing-Jones, you said something that from where I
come from registers with me. The litigation issues you talked
about and the providing of facilities to after-school for the
supplemental learning. Expand upon that a little bit more. Tell
me, are most of the schools not willing to provide onsite
supplemental learning? Is that a problem in South Carolina?
Mrs. Rushing-Jones. As I was sharing, last year we only had
one instance where that was a problem and we were able to work
with the provider to help them find a facility-owned site. This
year we have not heard it to be an issue yet, except Greenville
I recently learned and we may be just starting to face this
issue. I think it is something we are probably going to have to
work through with our application process a little better next
year. It is not a requirement that a district allow the
provider to be onsite according to the new guidance issued from
the U.S. Department of Education. However, of course, we
encourage them to partner with them, and the guidance does also
allow for the district to charge rent on the space or on
equipment.
Mr. Carter. So that is not an issue then? You are allowing
onsite--these folks to come onsite in most instances?
Mrs. Rushing-Jones. Some districts are and some are not.
Mr. Carter. All right. And are they--are you asking as part
of their contract that they have liability insurance to cover
the schools if they are onsite?
Mrs. Rushing-Jones. That is correct.
Mr. Carter. Is this individual school board rulings that
say we are not going to allow our schools to be used after
regular hours for any purposes? Is that what you are running
into?
Mrs. Rushing-Jones. As I said, this is a new situation for
us, and at this point it does seem to be a board policy
situation.
Mr. Carter. You know, the targeted students that we are
talking about here, they are generally going to have
transportation problems. Would you agree with me on that?
Mrs. Rushing-Jones. Correct.
Mr. Carter. And so if you are going to make them go to
somebody else's site after they leave school, they are going to
really have a hard time getting there. Mom and dad are probably
off doing something else and that means once again we are back
to transportation problems for the school if they have to go
offsite or they just do not go, right? Would you agree with
that?
Mrs. Rushing-Jones. That is true. And if we can assist
those providers in finding a facility that is near the school,
then I think that would be to their advantage.
Mr. Carter. From where I have been for the last 20 years, I
get a little irritated sometimes with litigation issues driving
policy, but they do drive an awful lot of policy in this
country. I believe you also said that with this 20 percent you
cannot--it is hard to calculate how you will divide that up,
because you first have to look at the transportation, is that
right?
Mrs. Rushing-Jones. That is correct, because both
supplemental services and choice being within that 20 percent,
you almost need to know what is going to happen to the choice
transportation first to find out how much is going to be
available for the supplemental services.
Mr. Carter. And that all relates back again to our test
scores not coming in on time, so you really do not know to
crunch your numbers early, right, otherwise you would know?
Mrs. Rushing-Jones. It does make a difference. With our
preliminary school improvement identification process it seemed
to work well getting that notice out to parents and being able
to move forward with parental notice prior to the beginning of
school.
Mr. Carter. OK. Well, thank you.
Mr. Harner, let me--Dr. Harner, let me ask you some
questions.
Dr. Harner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Carter. Curiosity. You said that all of your middle
schools or at least many of your middle schools had very--or
your schools had very high pre-SAT scores or some type of
testing scores, but did not do well on AYP, is that right?
Dr. Harner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Carter. What is the explanation for that? Is the AYP
evaluation wrong?
Dr. Harner. It is a very high standard, sir. You have--some
of our schools probably had 28 subgroups, 21 was our district
average for subgroups that had to make it, and if any one of
the subgroups did not make it--it could be just one subgroup--
the whole school does not make AYP. So you have the average--
for example, Brushy Creek was 21 subgroups and they made it,
all 21 subgroups. You go to Riverside Middle where a lot of
these students--poverty is a subgroup, and we are transporting
a lot of the students, say to Riverside Middle. Fifty students,
new students this year, 55 to Northwood Middle, you have to
have 40, I believe is the number, to have a subgroup, enough
students in a subgroup to have that considered. So we have just
moved the poverty line up a lot higher at those schools and
they are going to have more subgroups to deal with than they
might not have had at the higher end schools.
Mr. Carter. So by the very process we are creating new
subgroups?
Dr. Harner. Yes, sir--in schools.
Mr. Carter. In schools.
Dr. Harner. By moving them from one part of the county to
the other.
Mr. Carter. What do you see as the solution to this
problem, or do you have one?
Dr. Harner. Well one--off of Congressman DeMint's question,
the answer is flexibility--in the short-term flexibility of
funding, so the Title I dollars can go to assist those students
in the receiving schools so we can get that right.
Mr. Carter. Clearly that is one of the things that--
Dr. Harner. That is one of the major solutions.
Mr. Carter. Mr. Waggoner, you have actually been through
the process. First, how did you learn about it--about this
choice for your child?
Mr. Waggoner. Well, believe it or not, it was from a lady
in the newspaper, Cindy Landrum, called--
Mr. Carter. Called you up? That lady called you up?
Mr. Waggoner. --and she said what do you think about the
fact that you would get three choices for your daughter to go
instead of Hollis Elementary.
Mr. Carter. Well do you feel like that you should have
gotten a quicker choice--quicker information on that from the
school?
Mr. Waggoner. Well, that would not have hurt at all, but I
will preface that with we did have enough time.
Mr. Carter. OK.
Mr. Waggoner. So that was a--and one of the schools just
jumped out at us and we went up and checked the school out and
talked with the teachers, even Mrs. Coggins, the principal,
wonderful. The academic level was outstanding and the school
itself was beautiful. My daughter thrived there.
Mr. Carter. Did you ever have to make any of these
telephone calls either to the district or to the state about
trying to get further information?
Mr. Waggoner. No, we did not. Just like the open house, we
found about it from Cindy, and when we went, Mrs. Coggins said,
``Gee, your invitation or announcement came back to us in the
mail.'' We said, OK. So we are not really sure what does get
missed, but we are out of the loop in some of the things.
Mr. Carter. Back when I was a kid, they used to send those
home with the students, which is about the world's worst way to
get information about PTA out.
Mr. Waggoner. Yes.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Carter. I do not think I ever delivered one in the
entire history of my public school.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Waggoner. We did ask that they might be able to give it
to our daughter and thought better of that, too.
One other thing I did have in my statement that I did not
enumerate on, if you want to call it that. It says, Jessie
needed help in math. She did get tutoring twice a week for
quite a while from some students at Furman and Mrs. Baker, her
teacher. And one of the things, when you guys were bringing up
transportation, the student does not have to go off campus in
order to have a transportation problem. She stayed an extra
half an hour in school she missed her bus. So twice a week we
went up and got her regardless. It was not a far distance, it
was not even a time crunch most of the time from--that I get
out of class early enough or whatever. But that can be a
problem and it might need to be addressed if the students are
trying to take advantage of any of these extracurricular
learning concepts.
Mr. Carter. Well, you know, one of the key problems you
have got in dealing with kids at all--you know, I raised four
of them, more or less grown, and I have got one son who is a
teacher and a coach. Definitely the teachers and the
administrators have got more than they can say grace over to do
at these schools. There is no doubt about that. And
transportation, when you hold a kid after school, then how do
you get them home when their mom and dad are both working is a
problem for schools too, and I understand that. I would just
encourage all of you to think outside the box and encourage us
to think outside the box as to how we solve these problems.
Whether maybe this tutoring goes on as part of the ongoing
classroom day. I know that there are schools that have done
that, where the kids actually go off to resource classes as a
portion of each day. I do not know whether that has been tried
in this area or not, but that is something I will throw out for
you.
Thank you. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeMint. OK. I know this sounds like an inquisition, and
I really do think that the school districts and the state
department have responded well to a lot of changes in the last
couple of years. I think as we see these changes, certainly
there are administrative burdens. I am particularly proud of
Dr. Harner. You and the school district have done a lot to
facilitate this, and as you said before, I mean you were very
choice minded well before No Child Left Behind and the state
had really set the pace for testing and to try to get better
information to parents. But as Mr. Carter just mentioned, the
willingness to look at this program, make it better, create
opportunities, it does seem that supplemental services could
perhaps become part of the day. If you have got a child who has
difficulty reading or difficulty with math, the willingness of
school districts to--and schools to accommodate various
services, whether they are provided by the district or not
onsite seems to be a key element. I know apparently that is
something that right now Greenville School District does not
allow someone like Lightspan to operate within the facilities
of the school. As a matter of fact, I understand, Dr. Jeffrey,
that Lightspan has pulled out of Greenville County School
District because of a lack of access to the facilities
themselves. So it may not have been--word might not have gotten
back to you.
Is this something, Dr. Harner, that we could help with from
a legislative side? Is it a liability issue or is it just a--
what is the reason that outside supplemental services are not
allowed to operate inside the school?
Dr. Harner. Congressman DeMint, I think you have asked the
right questions and have gotten the answers from Mrs. Rushing-
Jones about liability issues, and you have already stated that
you understand that. Once we get through that hurdle, we will
be able to bring in more opportunities to our students.
Mr. DeMint. OK, that is good.
Let me ask each panelist if you have got a one or 2-minute
statement, maybe something you did not get to say that you
think is important for us to take back to Washington. Again,
the intent of this is for us to continue to improve the
legislation, the regulation and to try to identify best
practices as well as problems as we go along so that we can be
a partner at the Federal level with what is going on at the
state and local level. So one or 2 minutes at most.
We will start with you, Mrs. Rushing-Jones.
Mrs. Rushing-Jones. I would like to clarify one issue
concerning Title I. Getting money from Washington and the
concentration of funds, that is more tied, I think, to the
district. So actually the lowest poverty percent that you can
utilize for a school to be eligible is 35 percent poverty. So
the schools that we need to address, if the funds are to be
transferred to ineligible Title I schools will be 35 percent
poverty and less. If you could look at that.
Mr. DeMint. Good.
Mrs. Rushing-Jones. Also, the set aside requirement, which
I think Dr. Harner referred to as the escrow amount that the
district has to hold back within that 20 percent for choice and
supplemental services is a concern issue, because of the fact
that they can not pull those monies out to use for funding
additional schools or other services until possibly November.
However, you can look at some other fund sources to generate
that 20 percent amount. But with that money sitting there in
reserve and not being able to be used for a period of time by a
district, they also possibly are going to run into a problem
with meeting that 15 percent carry over limit requirement
within the Title I legislation. So that is a major concern for
many of our districts. We would appreciate that being
addressed.
Mr. DeMint. An excellent point.
Dr. Harner.
Dr. Harner. First off, thank you very much for coming and
picking Greenville County schools, and here at Brushy Creek,
for your Committee hearing.
A short answer to the question, the No Child Left Behind
Act and the regulations are a moving target, sir, and they come
out. And as they did last year, June a year ago, the beginning
of June, and the reporter called because there's new
legislation just announced, regulations, district, what are you
going to do? Called some parents, and that is how the parents
found out. Within 2 weeks or 3 weeks, we had notice out. So we
had notice out to parents for June for the next fall, and then
we refined it one more time in July. So we are there. I would
say go the distance with No Child Left Behind Act, but listen
to the educators and the parents that are out there that are in
the process and they have to lead a process. Give the
leadership, the superintendents, principals, the flexibility
and decisionmaking and encourage them to go forward with that.
Thank you for being here today.
Mr. Waggoner. I will just pass, and say thank you so much
for the opportunity to be here.
Mr. DeMint. Thank you. Dr. Jeffrey.
Dr. Jeffrey. I think two points. First of all, we are
approved in 24 states and we just are looking forward to being
approved in the remaining 26 states, 26 locations. It is a
consistent approval process from state to state that I think we
would like to see.
The second thing is, while Greenville--we are not offering
it in the school--the school facilities, we are looking at
providing it in alternative locations. We are looking at trying
to build partnerships with local community-based organizations,
faith-based organizations, etc. to be able to offer the
services, the supplemental services. So we are a flexible model
and look at all alternatives in terms of delivery.
Mr. DeMint. Wonderful. Again, I want to thank all of our
witnesses. I would like to recognize a couple of folks.
Oh, you would like to say something.
Mr. Carter. I would just like to close out by saying thank
you for such nice hospitality. And if there is any way this--
you thought this felt like an inquisition, it certainly was not
intended to be that way. I personally--my personal view of
education is that the folks on the ground have better knowledge
of how this works. And so as you come up with fresh ideas, I
would love to be able to stand up in Texas and say here is a
plan they came up with in South Carolina to make these services
reach the students better, and call it the South Carolina plan.
So I encourage you to do that, to think outside the box,
because at the local level is where, in my opinion, education
is best served. So I encourage you to take this framework we
have created, expand it and make it better. Then you have got
great representatives that you can inform to help us fix it, if
we need to fix it, in Washington.
I thank you for allowing me to be here, and thank you all
for letting me be a part of this. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeMint. Thank you, Mr. Carter.
I would like to recognize two superintendents from
Spartanburg, our neighbor, Dr. Darrell Owen and Dr. Jim Ray. If
either one would like to submit any comments for the record,
the record is open for 14 days, so we would love to hear
anything. I am sure, as you sat here you wanted to say a lot of
things that were not said.
Also, I would like to recognize Dr. David Church who has
been a real champion of charter schools in the state. He has
done a lot to move that choice provision around.
If there is no further business, this Subcommittee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
Letter from Dr. Darryl Owings, Superintendent, Spartanburg County
School District Six, Submitted for the Record
October 31, 2003
The Honorable Jim DeMint
U.S. House of Representatives
432 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman DeMint:
This letter will serve as my written testimony to be included for
the record for the House Subcommittee on Education Reform, which met at
Brushy Creek Elementary School on October 20, 2003. I want to thank you
for the opportunity to submit my testimony.
There are several flaws with the current No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) legislation. It is my request that Congress take this matter
very seriously and try to improve the No Child Left Behind legislation
in a way that it will improve education and make a positive difference
for children. I would like to point out several problems with the
legislation that need to be addressed.
1. The proficiency level is not equal from state to state. For
example, in some states (such as Arkansas), almost all schools
and children met Adequate Yearly Progress, and in South
Carolina and Florida, very few schools (13-17%) met Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP). In fact, out of 221 middle/junior high
schools in South Carolina, not a single school met AYP that had
a sub group that included students with disabilities. This is a
travesty. It is not a fair assessment and it is not a true
measure of education or learning. Frankly, the ``all or none''
concept of NCLB does not make common sense.
2. Students with disabilities should be allowed to take a test
that the IEP committee deems appropriate. It is inconceivable
that schools are testing students with severe disabilities with
the same test. This is also happening to students that cannot
speak English. Currently students are being forced to take a
test in English even if they cannot read or speak the language.
They are forced to take the test due to meeting the percent
tested requirement.
3. The federal No Child Left Behind legislation requires that
100% of the students be at the proficient level by 2014. It is
estimated that no district in South Carolina will meet AYP this
year with the percent of students at the proficient level at
17.6% for English Language Arts and 15.5% proficient for math.
As you can see, if no district in our state can meet the 17%
and 15% proficiency requirement, it could not be feasible that
districts or schools can meet the 100% proficient requirement.
For a true measure of the educational opportunities for students,
states should have substantially similar proficiency levels or all
should take the same nationally normed test.
The problems pointed out have been presented to parent groups, the
chamber of commerce and school boards, and the feeling is that this
legislation is unfair and doesn't make common sense the way it is
currently written. I know this was not the intent of Congress when they
passed this legislation.
At the school and district level, we are left in a state of
purgatory. Our South Carolina Department of Education tells us they are
meeting the federal guidelines with their interpretation of No Child
Left Behind. The United States Department of Education insists that it
is up to the state to interpret No Child Left Behind, and they will not
get involved at the state level. At the school level, we are left with
no one to turn to for help, and frankly, we are caught in the middle of
political bureaucracy. The federal Department of Education blames the
State Department of Education and the State Department of Education
blames the federal Department of Education.
The current No Child Left Behind act will have a detrimental
economic impact on South Carolina. I do not believe a company would
want to bring a business or corporation to a state when no school
district out of eighty-six met Adequate Yearly Progress. It is not a
true measure of our educational system.
We are constantly seeking ways for continuous improvement in our
school district. We use local money to provide educational
opportunities for students because it is right for children and it is
our social and moral responsibility as educators. We are committed to
leaving no child behind.
I commend your for your quest for good information from the
education community. I know this is vital in order for you to make
informed decisions. I also applaud your efforts to put children and
their education first.
Please do not hesitate to call upon me for further clarification of
any of these points. I would also make myself available to testify on
the issue of No Child Left Behind at any time.
Thank you again for allowing me to submit this written testimony
and I look forward to hearing from you in the future.
Sincerely,
Darryl Owings
Superintendent
Spartanburg County School District Six
Spartanburg, South Carolina
______
Statement of Charles J. Saylors, Representing the South Carolina PTA
and the National PTA, Submitted for the Record
Good Morning. My name is Chuck Saylors and I am the president of
the South Carolina PTA, which represents close to 150,000 members. I
also sit on the Board of Directors of National PTA, the country's
largest child advocacy organization, with over six million members.
Parents are key stakeholders in the education debate, so I thank you
for the opportunity to express PTA's perspective on the No Child Left
Behind Act, with our particular comments on public school choice and
supplemental services.
As you know, National PTA was an active participant in the
reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act. We worked particularly
hard to ensure parent involvement provisions were incorporated
throughout the law and were pleased that for the first time ever, the
law includes a definition of parent involvement, which was based on
PTA's National Standards for Parent and Family Involvement Programs.
A December 2002 National PTA poll of citizens who voted in the 2002
midterm elections found that 61 percent of American citizens felt that
federal spending for education must be increased to fulfill the
commitments made in the No Child Left Behind Act. Furthermore, 74
percent felt that the law would not be effective if Congress provided
less funding than is authorized in the law.
We have continued to advocate for increased funding for public
education. PTA members in South Carolina and around the country have
been active participants in the ``Five Cents Makes Sense for
Education'' campaign and have asked our representatives in Congress to
double the federal investment in education. We have consistently
advocated for public funds for public schools and have continued to
oppose the diversion of public funds for private schools. National PTA
has remained vocal in opposing vouchers in the District of Columbia and
anywhere else publicly funded vouchers have been proposed.
While the full funding of the No Child Left Behind Act is a
priority for both South Carolina PTA and National PTA members, the
school choice provisions outlined in the law are also of specific
concern. The No Child Left Behind Act requires that children who attend
schools that have not made adequate yearly progress (AYP) for two
consecutive years be offered the ability to transfer to another public
school within the school district. Districts must designate at least
two schools to which children from these schools can transfer.
The U.S. Department of Education has determined that student
capacity cannot be a barrier to these students attending another public
school, and that even if a school has reached its maximum capacity,
students from schools that did not meet AYP may still attend. The
Department of Education has said it expects school districts and states
to do whatever is necessary, whether by building more schools or by
hiring additional teachers, in order to create the capacity to
accommodate every student who wants to attend a particular school.
This policy has provided great challenges for school districts
throughout South Carolina. The regulations create a logistical
nightmare for school districts, one that would be compounded by
shifting student choices from year to year. In light of a lack of
funding from the federal government, the Department's consistent
opposition to federal assistance to states and school districts for
school construction, and the worsening of state and local budget
problems stemming from the prolonged economic downturn, school
districts do not have the necessary funds to hire additional faculty
members or to expand school buildings.
If schools are not provided with increased funding to hire new
teachers to accommodate increased enrollment, then class size
increases. Teachers are unable to provide students with the individual
attention and the quality of education that they deserve. Schools are
unable to purchase additional resources such as textbooks, computers,
and other related materials that are necessary for providing every
student with an outstanding education. In addition, even more funding
must be found to transport students to their new schools, which
provides an additional financial burden for the school district.
Parents with children in both rural and urban schools face unique
challenges. For those in rural areas, the only option is to make
schools the best possible learning environment with limited tools and
resources. Public school choice is not an option. Rural schools already
receive a disproportionately low level of federal funding. Tight school
budgets are causing many rural school districts to consolidate with
neighboring districts, leading to the closure of schools that often
also serve as community centers and increasing the time children spend
in transit to and from school. For those in urban areas, there is a
possibility that all schools in the area are labeled failing and again
there is no alternative for students.
Although public school choice claims to help the students who
attend the failing schools, no actions are being taken to help these
schools improve. Funding should be made available to ensure that each
classroom has a highly qualified teacher who has the necessary
resources to ensure that students are successful. We must not neglect
the failing schools. Instead, we must turn the schools around and help
them to succeed.
PTA also has concerns about the supplemental services provision of
the No Child Left Behind Act. The law requires that Title I schools
that fail to make AYP for three consecutive years must use their Title
I funds to provide supplemental educational services, which means
tutoring or other academic services provided in addition to instruction
offered during the school day. These services can be provided by
public, private, nonprofit, or for-profit entities, including religious
institutions. National PTA believes that providers must demonstrate
effectiveness, align their content with the school district's standards
and curriculum, and comply with state, local, and federal health,
safety, and civil rights laws. All providers should be qualified to
instruct students in these subject areas. Furthermore, we believe the
provision should promote school-based tutoring and supplemental
services, with all funds focused on the most needy children first.
There is a recent cartoon that shows a teacher looking out onto a
sea of students. The teacher asks the class, ``What a minute When did
our class size reach 3,704,552?'' to which a student replies, ``This
was the only school that wasn't failing, so they transferred all of us
here.'' Although this cartoon is a bit far-fetched, the theme is clear.
If we continue to label schools ``failing'' and allow students to
transfer to so-called ``better'' schools, class size will increase and
students will not receive the attention and services they need and
deserve. In order to improve schools, we must increase the federal
investment in education. If we truly want to leave no child behind,
then it is our duty to support them.
The No Child Left Behind Act was meant to reform all schools, for
all children. Unless states and school districts receive a more
balanced federal directive in line with the public school choice
requirements in the statute, other equally important priorities, such
as teacher training, after-school and summer school tutoring, and
improved testing and assessment, will have to be severely compromised.
PTA members in South Carolina and across the country commit
themselves every day to improving the education of not only our own
kids, but of all children nationwide. The federal government must make
that same commitment. Without adequate funding for our schools, many
children, including our kids in South Carolina, will be left behind.