[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND: RAISING STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN AMERICA'S BIG
CITY SCHOOLS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
June 23, 2004
__________
Serial No. 108-65
__________
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
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
94-513 WASHINGTON : 2004
____________________________________________________________________________
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
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 23, 2004.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Boehner, Hon. John A., Chairman, Committee on Education and
the Workforce.............................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Kucinich, Hon. Dennis J., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Ohio, prepared statement of................... 66
Miller, Hon. George, Ranking Member, Committee on Education
and the Workforce.......................................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Statement of Witnesses:
Casserly, Dr. Michael D., Executive Director, Council of
Great City Schools, Washington, DC......................... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Newsome, Dr. Marcus, Superintendent, Newport News County
Public Schools, Newport News, Virginia..................... 30
Prepared statement of.................................... 33
Raymond, Dr. Margaret E., Executive Director, Center for
Research on Education Outcomes, Hoover Institution,
Stanford University, Stanford, California.................. 14
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 66
Smith, Dr. Eric J., Superintendent, Anne Arundel County
Public Schools, Annapolis, Maryland........................ 20
Prepared statement of.................................... 21
Vallas, Paul G., Chief Executive Officer, School District of
Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania................... 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND: RAISING STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN AMERICA'S BIG CITY
SCHOOLS
----------
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Washington, DC
----------
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:35 a.m., in
room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John A. Boehner
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Boehner, Petri, McKeon, Castle,
Ehlers, Isakson, Biggert, Platts, Tiberi, Osborne, Kline,
Gingrey, Burns, Miller, Kildee, Andrews, Woolsey, Hinojosa,
McCarthy, Tierney, Kind, Kucinich, Wu, Davis of California,
McCollum, Davis of Illinois, and Bishop.
Staff present: Amanda Farris, Professional Staff Member;
Kevin Frank, Professional Staff Member; Joshua Holly, Director
of Media Affairs; Sally Lovejoy, Director of Education and
Human Resources Policy; Alanna Porter, Legislative Assistant;
Deborah L. Samantar, Committee Clerk/Intern Coordinator; Alice
Cain, Minority Legislative Associate/Education; Tom Kiley,
Minority Press Secretary; John Lawrence, Minority Staff
Director; Ricardo Martinez, Minority Legislative Associate/
Education; Alex Nock, Minority Legislative Associate/Education;
Joe Novotny, Minority Legislative Assistant/Education; and
Linda Theil, Minority Legislative Associate/Education.
Chairman Boehner. A quorum being present, the Committee on
Education and the Workforce will come to order.
We're holding this hearing today to hear testimony on ``No
Child Left Behind: Raising Student Achievement in America's Big
City Schools.'' Now, opening statements are limited to the
Chairman and Ranking Member. With that, I ask unanimous consent
for the hearing record to remain open for 14 days to allow
member statements and other extraneous material referenced
during the hearing today to be submitted for the official
record. Without objection, so ordered.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN A. BOEHNER, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
I want to thank all of you for being here, especially our
witnesses. Today is the ninth hearing held by the Committee on
the implementation of No Child Left Behind. And we're here
today to take a look at how No Child Left Behind is helping to
improve student academic achievement in our nation's urban
schools.
Previous hearings held by this Committee have examined the
benefits No Child Left Behind provides for rural schools, for
schools with high numbers of students with disabilities, for
states and schools working to put a quality teacher in every
classroom.
But with today's hearing, we turn our attention to the
early results being seen in America's inner city schools, where
the achievement gap between disadvantaged students and their
peers has been--has perhaps been the most evident since the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act was first enacted in
1965. We all recognize improving our educational system is
essential, not only to our society but to our nation's economy
and competitiveness as well. President Bush recognized this
when he made education reform his top domestic priority upon
taking office 3 years ago. And the members of this Committee,
Democrats and Republicans alike, were proud to work with him to
produce a law that was uniquely bipartisan.
That law was No Child Left Behind, and it has fundamentally
changed the approach we take to Federal education spending. As
a result of NCLB, our nation is spending far more than ever
before on education. But we're also expecting more in exchange
for that money: states and school districts are expected to
improve academic achievement for all of their students,
regardless of where they live, who their parents are, their
backgrounds, or other factors.
For too many years, states and school districts point--
pointing to rising overall student test scores for a school had
accepted an ever increasing amount of Federal funding, even
though certain groups of children were falling behind. States
and schools were able to highlight aggregate data showing most
students were making progress. But because they were required
only to report this data in the aggregate, parents and
taxpayers could be kept in the dark, when some children were
actually losing ground.
No Child Left Behind is ending this practice. The law
requires student test data be broken down by subgroup and
reported to the public. Now achievement gaps between
disadvantaged students and their peers, once hidden from public
view, are public knowledge for all to see. The law is shining a
bright spotlight on the most neglected corners of our public
education system. The very corners of the classroom hidden from
public view during the aggregate days are now beginning to see
some of the early payoff for parents and students.
One report released earlier this year by the Council of
Great City Schools, which we'll hear more about during Dr.
Casserly's testimony, shows students in the nation's big city
schools posted significant increases in math and reading test
scores during the first year of No Child Left Behind. The
report shows students in 61 school districts, in 37 states,
made improvements on fourth- and eighth-grade math and reading
assessments. And the authors of the report--partially credit
the reforms in No Child Left Behind for these gains.
This year one of the Council of Great City Schools member
school districts, which also happens to be in my congressional
district, showed considerable progress on math and reading
tests again this year. The fourth-grade reading test scores in
the Dayton Public Schools increased by 9 percentage points,
from 25 percent passing last year to 34 percent passing this
year.
In math, Dayton fourth-graders showed another 9 percent
gain, going from 22 percent passing on last year's test score
to 31 percent this year. And state-wide, math scores have also
improved dramatically, from 58 percent last year to 66 percent
this year. Maybe not as much progress as some would hope, but
certainly we're seeing progress.
As other states release their test data, we're seeing
similar proof that student achievement is on the rise and
achievement gaps are closing.
In Maryland, 71 percent of third-graders passed the reading
exam this year, as compared to 58 percent in 2003. Limited
English proficient students posted an impressive 27-point
increase in reading scores this year.
Delaware students have also posted significant gains this
year. Student scores in three out of four grade levels improved
in all three subjects tested, reading, writing, and math. Now
fifth-grade reading performance in Delaware climbed to 85
percent, a 7-percent increase from last year.
Florida has also seen an increase in the number of schools
that they expect to meet adequate yearly progress standards
this year.
Now these increases are early evidence that the law is
working as intended. Schools and communities are responding to
No Child Left Behind by focusing on closing the achievement gap
like never before. Instead of making excuses, many are making
changes. And those changes appear to be making a difference. As
the Great City School report says, ``They're beating the
odds.''
Is the news as good as it appears? How are they doing it?
What challenges lie ahead? And we're interested in knowing what
lessons others can draw from the experience in our inner-city
schools.
So I'd like to thank all of our distinguished witnesses for
being here, and thank all of you who've shown your interest in
coming today. And with that, I'd like to yield to my friend and
colleague, Mr. Miller.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Boehner follows:]
Statement of Hon. John A. Boehner, Chairman, Committee on Education and
the Workforce
Good morning. Thank you all for being here for the tenth hearing
held by the House Education & the Workforce Committee on the
implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act.
We're here today to take a look at how the No Child Left Behind Act
is helping to improve student academic achievement in our nation's
urban schools.
Previous hearings held by this committee have examined the benefits
No Child Left Behind provides for rural schools; for schools with high
numbers of students with disabilities; and for states and schools
working to put a quality teacher in every classroom. But with today's
hearing we turn our attention to the early results being seen in
America's inner-city schools, where the achievement gap between
disadvantaged students and their peers has perhaps been most evident
since the Elementary & Secondary Education Act was first enacted in
1965.
We all recognize improving our educational system is essential not
only to our society, but to our nation's economy and competitiveness as
well. President Bush recognized this and made education reform his top
domestic priority upon taking office three years ago. And the members
of this committee--Democrat and Republican alike--were proud to work
with him to produce a law that was uniquely bipartisan. That law was
the No Child Left Behind Act, and it has fundamentally changed the
approach we take to federal education spending. As a result of NCLB,
our nation is spending far more than ever before on education--but
we're also expecting more. In exchange for that funding, states and
school districts are expected to improve academic achievement for all
of their students--regardless of where they live, who their parents
are, their backgrounds, or other factors.
For too many years, states and school districts--pointing to rising
overall student test scores for a school--had accepted an ever-
increasing amount of federal funding even though certain groups of
children were falling behind. States and schools were able to highlight
``aggregate'' data showing most students were making progress. But
because they were required only to report this data in the aggregate,
parents and taxpayers could be kept in the dark when some children were
actually losing ground.
No Child Left Behind is ending this practice. The law requires
student test data to be broken down by subgroup and reported to the
public. Now achievement gaps between disadvantaged students and their
peers, once hidden from public view, are public knowledge for all to
see. The law is shining a brilliant spotlight on the most neglected
corners of our public education system--the very corners of the
classroom hidden from public view during the ``aggregate'' data days.
We're now beginning to see some of the early payoff for parents and
students.
One report released earlier this year by the Council of the Great
City Schools--which we'll hear more about during Dr. Casserly's
testimony--shows students in the nation's big city schools posted
significant increases in math and reading test scores during the first
year of NCLB implementation. The report shows students in 61 school
districts in 37 states made improvements on fourth and eighth grade
math and reading assessments. The authors of the report partially
credit the reforms in NCLB for these gains.
This year, one of the Council of the Great City Schools' member
school districts--which also happens to be in my congressional
district--showed considerable progress on math and reading tests again
this year. Fourth grade reading test scores in the Dayton Public
Schools increased by 9 percentage points--from 25 percent passing last
year to 34 percent passing this year. In math, Dayton fourth graders
showed another 9 point gain--going from 22 percent passing on last
year's test to 31 percent this year. Statewide, fourth grade math
scores have also improved dramatically, from 58 percent last year to 66
percent this year.
As other states release their test data, we're seeing similar proof
that student achievement is on the rise and achievement gaps are
closing. In Maryland, 71 percent of third graders passed the reading
exam this year, as compared to 58 percent in 2003. Limited English
Proficient (LEP) students posted an impressive 27 point increase in
reading scores this year.
Delaware students have also posted significant gains this year.
Student scores in three out of four grade levels improved in all three
subjects tested--reading, writing and math. Fifth grade reading
performance in Delaware climbed to 85 percent, a seven percentage point
increase from last year. Florida has also seen an increase in the
number of schools they expect to meet their Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP) standards this year.
These increases are early evidence that the law is working as
intended. Schools and communities are responding to No Child Left
Behind by focusing on closing the achievement gap like never before.
Instead of making excuses, many are making changes--and those changes
appear to be making a difference. As the Great City Schools report
says, they're ``beating the odds.'' Is the news as good as it appears?
How are they doing it? What challenges lie ahead? We're interested in
knowing what lessons others can draw from the experience in our inner-
city schools.
I would like to thank everyone for attending today. I'd especially
like to thank our distinguished witnesses for their participation. I
look forward to your testimony.
______
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much, and I want to thank
Chairman Boehner for holding this hearing--as he pointed out,
one in a series of hearings--and I'm delighted that he's
assembled this panel, because of your wealth of knowledge and
experience in dealing with many of the issues that we've shown
concern about over the years. But also because it focuses on
the central and the exceedingly important goal of No Child Left
Behind, and that is, obviously, eliminating the achievement gap
among low-income and minority children. And I share the
excitement of the Chairman with the report of the Council of
Great City Schools, showing improvement among schools in very
difficult environments and hope that it signals future changes.
I continue to be concerned about whether or not we have
properly funded this act so that we can get that continuous
improvement over the long term. I and many of my colleagues
believe that the act currently is short about $27 billion, and
we believe that that would make a substantial difference in our
ability to maintain these improvements that you're going to
report on today.
And that raises a couple of questions that I hope you--we
will have a chance to address later, maybe in your testimony,
but maybe in the questions. And that is, in terms of the
prioritizing of the spending under the act, whether you think
it's right or wrong or whether you would change it around to
help you sustain these results or improve these results. I
think it's important for us to know clearly the implementation
of the act--some of us have had trouble with the
implementation--we believe that--we've introduced the NCLB
Fairness Act that would take schools that have previously
failed to comply, use the standards now set by the department
and the changes for last year. You can discuss that.
But also I guess the question that really hounds me is that
many of you have had experiences in getting a bump in
performance. And we know, in my own case, the new
superintendent, a change in the school board, a refocusing of
goals gets us these bumps in performance. The new reading
program gets us a bump in grade performance in schools. The
question is--the goal of this legislation, of course, is that
we make this continuous improvement over a period of 12 years,
that we sustain a bump which would be precedent-setting
compared to what happens in most areas of improvement where we
get two, maybe we get 3 years' improvement, then it seems to
plateau out. What should we be doing in terms of thinking about
helping these districts that have made this kind of
improvement, those who we hope will make it in the future, be
able to sustain it? Because that will be the real test as to
whether or not this gap in fact gets closed that we've put so
much emphasis on.
And so I look forward to your testimony. I would hope that
we would be able to discuss these matters of continuous
improvement, of funding, and of implementation of the act and
the guidance that you have received.
So thank you very much for being here this morning. We look
forward to hearing from you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. George Miller follows:]
Statement of Hon. George Miller, Ranking Member, Committee on Education
and the Workforce
Good morning. I'm looking forward to today's hearing because it
focuses on a central--and exceedingly important--goal of NCLB:
eliminating the achievement gap among low-income and minority children.
Our witnesses have great expertise in this area and I'm eager to hear
their perspectives' both about what is working well so far and the
challenges they continue to face.
I am pleased that the Council of Great City Schools has found that
in the first year of NCLB, students in our urban public schools are
advancing academically. It is very encouraging that these students are
posting significant gains in both reading and math.
But reform without resources isn't sustainable over the long term.
We're turning our backs on our children by not fully funding NCLB--
especially the Title I program.
Since NCLB's enactment, President Bush and the Republican Congress
have underfunded NCLB by $27 billion. The shortfall in the President's
budget next year is $9.4 billion.
I am working to try to increase the amount of funding for NCLB next
year. I am interested in hearing from our panel about whether the
schools they are working with have the resources they need to provide
every child with a quality education.
I am also interested in knowing how you would prioritize the
spending if we are successful in getting even a modest funding increase
for NCLB. How could extra funding make the most difference?
I am also concerned that we've turned our backs on properly
implementing this law. A problem of particular concern is a basic
fairness issue: schools were forced to have their initial AYP results
calculated before the Bush Administration had released crucial guidance
to schools.
Now that the guidelines are in place, the Department of Education
is not permitting schools to recalculate their AYP based on the
standards set in the Department's own guidelines. So, some schools that
would make AYP using these standards are being identified as needing
improvement.
Misidentifying successful schools as needing improvement will
dilute--rather than increase--the amount of assistance available to
schools that do need to improve.
A related problem is that it will be difficult to determine whether
reforms are working if schools are judged on different criteria for
different years. How can we possibly tell if schools are making
progress if they are held to different standards different years?
The Secretary of Education has cited the lack of any legislative
authority as an obstacle to applying the regulations retroactively.
To address these problems and provide the Secretary with this
authority, Senator Kennedy and I introduced the NCLB Fairness Act last
week. It gives schools the flexibility to have their AYP for last year
recalculated based on the Department's guidance on children with
disabilities and limited English skills.
I am pleased that all of the Democrats on the committee have co-
sponsored it. I hope all of our Republican colleagues will join us.
Congress should respond to the needs of schools by enacting this bill.
Nothing we will do this year on this committee is more important
that ensuring that we live up to No Child Left Behind's promise of a
quality education for every child. I appreciate all that each of you
are doing to make this a reality and look forward to hearing from you.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
______
Chairman Boehner. Thank you, Mr. Miller. And while Mr.
Miller and I may have disagreements on whether the funding
glass is half full or half empty, I think I can speak for both
of us in terms of our commitment to make this law work and to
help those children in America who today aren't getting the
best chance at a decent education.
It's my pleasure to introduce our distinguished panel of
witnesses. Our first witness is Dr. Michael Casserly. Dr.
Casserly has served as the executive director of the Council of
Great City Schools, the nation's primary coalition of large
urban public school systems, since January 1992. And before
assuming this position, Dr. Casserly served as the
organization's director of legislation and research for 15
years.
Then we'll hear from Dr. Margaret Raymond. Dr. Raymond is
the director of the Center for Research on Education Outcomes,
which analyzes education reform efforts around the country. In
addition to her work at the Center for Research on Education
Outcomes, Dr. Raymond has taught in the public policy analysis
program at the University of Rochester since 1992.
Then we'll hear from Dr. Eric Smith. Since July of 2003,
Dr. Smith's been the superintendent of the Anne Arundel County
Public Schools. And prior to his work in Maryland, Dr. Smith
was the superintendent for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools in
North Carolina, where he was a recipient of the 2002
Superintendent of the Year Award. And prior to becoming a
superintendent, Dr. Smith was a principal and teacher in
Orlando, Florida.
Then we'll hear from Mr. Paul Vallas. Mr. Vallas is the
chief executive officer of the school district of Philadelphia.
And prior to this, Mr. Vallas served as the chief executive
officer of Chicago public schools from 1995 through 2001. Mr.
Vallas is implementing a sweeping district-wide reforms in
Philadelphia, duplicating many of the approaches that changed
the Chicago public school system from one of the most under-
performing in the Nation to a nationally recognized model for
education reform.
And then we'll hear from Dr. Marcus Newsome. Dr. Newsome is
currently superintendent of the Newport News public schools.
And he's also served as regional executive director in Prince
George's County, Maryland, public school system, as well as a
teacher in the District of Columbia public schools.
And before the witnesses begin, we all know about the
lights. Don't get too worried about the lights, but don't get
too carried away either. And the members will all ask their
questions when the entire panel is finished.
And with that, Dr. Casserly, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL D. CASSERLY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
COUNCIL OF THE GREAT CITY SCHOOLS, WASHINGTON, DC
Dr. Casserly. Thank you very much. Good morning. My name is
Michael Casserly. I'm the executive director of the Council of
the Great City Schools. Thank you very much for this
opportunity to testify, and I would like to take up some of the
issues on the implementation and sustaining gains that Mr.
Miller raised during the question-and-answer period.
Mr. Chairman, I've been asked to focus my testimony this
morning on the findings of a report that my organization
recently published, called ``Beating the Odds: A City by City
Analysis of Student Performance and Achievement Gaps on State
Assessments,'' and to offer some perspective on the initial
impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement in the
nation's big city schools.
The council published this report, ``Beating the Odds,'' in
March 2004. It was the fourth edition of this study and
contains detailed statistics on the percentages of urban school
students achieving at or above proficiency levels on each
city's respective state test through spring 2003. We have
published this report annually since 2001 to make it clear to
the American people that our urban schools are strongly in
favor of the standards movement and are thoroughly committed to
higher performance and accountability; to track our progress on
academic goals that the Nation has set for us; and to better
understand the effects of the reforms that we are pursuing.
Our most recent report attempted to answer the question,
``Have urban schools improved student performance since No
Child Left Behind was enacted?'' The answer appears to be yes.
The evidence from ``Beating the Odds IV'' and other sources
suggests that the nation's big city schools have seen important
gains in reading and math achievement since No Child Left
Behind.
Between 2002 and 2003 school years, the percentage of urban
fourth-graders scoring at or above proficiency levels on their
respective state reading test increased from 42.9 percent to
47.8 percent, an increase of 4.9 percentage points. The
percentage of urban fourth-graders scoring at or above
proficiency levels on their respective state math test
increased from 44.2 percent to 51 percent, an increase of 6.8
percentage points.
The percentage of urban eighth-graders, moreover, scoring
at or above proficiency levels stayed approximately level at
about 37 percent and the percentage of urban eighth-graders
scoring at or above proficiency levels in math increased from
36.4 percent to 39.4 percent, a gain of 3 percentage points.
The council also looked at the percentage of urban school
districts that had posted reading and math gains between 2002
and 2003. The results showed that about three-quarters of our
cities posted reading and math gains in half or more of the
grades tested, and about half posted faster gains than their
respective states. In addition, the report found stronger--
strong gains among African-American and Hispanic students in
our urban schools.
Many of these findings from ``Beating the Odds'' are
corroborated by reading data from the Trial Urban NAEP
Assessment. These data show that the reading performance among
urban fourth-graders increased by a statistically significant
margin between 2002 and 2003. Reading performance among urban
eighth-graders remained unchanged, the same finding as we saw
in the state data. Conversely, the percentage of urban fourth-
graders reading below basic on NAEP decreased significantly
between 2002 and 2003.
These urban NAEP gains, moreover, came during a period in
which the Nation showed little overall improvement in reading
performance, meaning that city school districts were not being
pulled upward by a larger national effect. They were doing this
on their own.
The data from previous editions from ``Beating the Odds''
also suggest that improvements in urban school achievement,
particularly in math, pre-date No Child Left Behind by a number
of years. Reading gains, however, appear to be more recent. We
saw signs in previous reports that we have done that the
numbers of urban students approaching the proficiency bar in
reading were increasing, but we had not seen them meeting or
exceeding that bar until this most recent report.
In other words, ``Beating the Odds'' suggests that big city
schools did not begin implementing No Child Left Behind from a
standing position. They had a running start.
The question about what is producing these gains is
difficult to answer. We suspect that the improvements are
attributable to the standards movement and the changes it has
triggered in urban schools; to the hard work and commitment of
urban school administrators, teachers, and boards across the
country, and the hard work of others who want to see us
succeed. We also give some credit to No Child Left Behind for
focusing our attention more sharply on student achievement. It
would be difficult, of course, to claim that the new law has
had a direct effect programmatically in just 1 year, but the
gains may be attributable in part to the increasing focus that
No Child Left Behind has brought to student achievement.
The Committee should know that we understand that we have a
long way to go to attain the goals that No Child Left Behind
has set for us. Our performance is still way too low. Still,
the data from No Child--from ``Beating the Odds'' present an
emerging and promising picture of how America's great city
schools are performing and strongly suggest that we are making
progress.
More importantly, the data indicate that improvement is
possible on a large scale, not just school by school. The
public should no longer wonder whether urban education can be
saved. It can. The public should no longer worry about whether
student achievement can be raised. It will be. The question on
the table now is, how fast. That we have changed the question
is by itself a sign of the progress we are starting to make.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Casserly follows:]
Statement of Dr. Michael D. Casserly, Executive Director, Council of
Great City Schools, Washington, DC
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4513.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4513.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4513.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4513.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4513.005
------
Chairman Boehner. Thank you.
Dr. Raymond.
STATEMENT OF DR. MARGARET RAYMOND, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR
RESEARCH ON EDUCATION OUTCOMES, THE HOOVER INSTITUTION,
STANFORD UNIVERSITY, STANFORD, CALIFORNIA
Dr. Raymond. Good morning. My name is Margaret Raymond, and
I am the director of the Center for Research on Education
Outcomes at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. I am
grateful to be able to share with you the latest research done
with my co-author, Eric Hanushek, on the impacts of No Child
Left Behind (NCLB) on student performance. I will describe our
approach and summarize the findings. A copy of the full paper
on which my testimony is based has been submitted to the
record.
NCLB builds on existing state accountability policies which
were adopted one by one over a period of years. States either
adopted a report card system, which merely publicized
performance, or a consequence system that included rewards and
sanctions.
To isolate the effects of accountability, we estimated
statistical models of gains on the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP), controlling for other possible
influences on student performance. Since the thrust of
accountability, and NCLB, is on low achievers, which include
minority groups, we also examined the equivalence of impact on
student subgroups.
An implicit assumption is that accountability, as revealed
through mandatory disaggregation of performance by subgroups,
will both close existing gaps and improve performance for all.
To test this, we disaggregated the state results for whites,
blacks, and Hispanics. The findings are as follows: First,
students are better off with accountability. The evidence shows
that introduction of accountability has had a positive impact
on student performance. Students covered by systematic
accountability systems gained an average of 3.6 NAEP points
more than students in states without accountability. This is
roughly a fifth of a standard deviation greater gains.
But we find that just using report cards does not influence
performance. Consequences matter. Thus it seems important to
include direct incentives rather than relying on indirect
forces.
Second, accountability helps all students, but it helps
some more than others. When we break out the performance of
subgroups, Hispanic students are found to gain most from
accountability, while blacks gain least. That is,
accountability provides Hispanics an extra boost relative to
white gains, but for black students the relative effect is
negative.
In states with consequential accountability, the white-
Hispanic difference in gains narrowed over the 10 years of
state accountability, but the white-black differences in gains
widened. This means that blacks still benefit from having
accountability, but not as much as whites. And Hispanics
benefit more than whites.
Accountability systems thus lead to overall improvements in
student performance, but they do not uniformly meet the
objectives of closing the achievement gaps. The well-known
principle that it's generally not feasible to satisfy multiple
objectives with a single policy instrument finds support here.
So what do the results tell us? Because NCLB called for
each state to design its own system, and because most states
keyed off of their existing systems, this analysis of the early
impacts of state systems provides information about what can be
expected with full implementation of NCLB.
The importance on focusing on improved academic outcomes
cannot be overstated. Higher achievement leads to higher
earnings of individuals and larger growth of the economy. To
put the matter in context, if we could move the average
achievement of students to what is today the 75th percentile,
we would realize a boost in future productivity and earnings
that could fund the entire amount spent on K-12 public
education in the United States just on that gain. Policies such
as accountability can contribute meaningfully to such a result,
and NCLB is doing that.
The most notable result from our analysis is that
accountability is important for students in the United States.
Across a wide range of designs, they have a positive impact on
achievement. But that impact relies on attaching consequences
to performance. So NCLB's use of consequences is supported by
this analysis and suggests that other incentive mechanisms
might be appropriate to try to further accelerate student
gains.
The varying effect by student subgroups raises important
policy questions. All students are better off with
accountability than without it. But in relative terms, when the
effect of the pre-existing achievement gaps and accountability
are taken together, accountability seems to mitigate, but not
reverse, a widening of the achievement gap. Thus there's no one
answer that will lead to all the improvements that we desire.
Additional policies are needed to realize the multiple
objectives.
Finally, while we have not dwelled on it, the current state
systems are not particularly strong. They lead to achievement
gains, regardless, on the order of two-tenths of a standard
deviation. If we get this effect size with such blunt
instruments as we have today, it seems plausible to expect
additional gains if the systems are refined.
The accountability premium, while not revolutionary, is
notable when compared to alternative reforms that failed to
yield such impacts on a broad or sustained basis. As
accountability systems evolve, they are likely to have
considerably stronger impacts if they can be moved toward more
precise incentives for individual schools.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Raymond follows:]
Statement of Margaret E. Raymond, Executive Director, Center for
Research on Education Outcomes, Hoover Institution, Stanford
University, Stanford, California
Abstract
The leading school reform policy in the United States revolves
around strong accountability of schools with consequences for
performance. The federal government's involvement through the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001 reinforces the prior movement of many states
toward policies based on measured student achievement. Analysis of
state achievement growth as measured by the National Assessment of
Educational progress shows that accountability systems introduced
during the 1990s had a clear positive impact on student achievement.
This single policy instrument did not, however, also lead to any
narrowing in the black-white achievement gap (though it did narrow the
Hispanic-white achievement gap). An additional issue surrounding
stronger accountability has been a concern about unintended
consequences related to such things as higher exclusion rates from
testing, increased drop-out rates, and the like. This analysis of
special education placement rates, a frequently identified area of
concern, does not show any responsiveness to the introduction of
accountability systems.
Introduction
The cornerstone of Federal educational policy has been expansion of
school accountability based on measured student test performance. The
policy has been controversial for a variety of reasons, leading to
assertions that it has distorted schools in undesirable ways, that is
has led to gaming and unintended consequences, and that it has not even
accomplished its objectives of improving student achievement. The
research completed with my co-author Eric Hanushek, provides evidence
on the expected effects of NCLB not only on student performance but
also on other potential consequences. Even though accountability
policies are relatively new in public education, their controversial
nature has stimulated an accumulating body of systematic evidence on
their effects. The work covered here is consistent with earlier
studies.
The findings show that introducing accountability systems into a
state tends to lead to larger achievement growth than would have
occurred without accountability. The analysis, however, indicates that
just reporting results has minimal impact on student performance and
that the force of accountability comes from attaching consequences to
school performance. This finding supports the contested provisions of
NCLB that impose sanctions on failing schools.
This testimony presents a brief description of the analytic
approach, followed by a summary of the findings. A copy of the full
paper, Does School Accountability Lead to Improved Student
Performance?, has been submitted to the record.
Analytic Approach
NCLB builds on the existing state accountability policies, which
were adopted individually over a period of years. States differed by
whether they adopted a ``report card'' system, which merely publicized
the performance results, and ``consequence'' states that designed
rewards and sanctions into their policies. The pattern of adoption
makes it possible to take snapshots of student achievement across
states at different points in time and observe how the implementation
of accountability policies affects the performance of student cohorts.
Our approach uses information about state differences in mathematics
and reading performance as identified by the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP). NAEP offers a consistent yardstick
nationwide of how much students are learning, something that individual
state achievement tests do not provide. Because NAEP tests 4th and 8th
graders quadrennially, the 4th graders in one test administration
become the 8th graders in the next. So the differences in scores
between the 4th and 8th grade tests track gains for a cohort in each
state. NAEP has been around long enough that we have two cohorts to
study for each Math and Reading.
To isolate the effects of accountability, we estimated statistical
models that allowed for other possible influences on student
achievement. We included explicit measures for major categories of time
varying inputs: parental education, school spending, and racial
exposure in the schools. We controlled for any other state policies
that lead to trends up or down in student performance in each state. In
related analysis, special education placement rates are used to examine
if accountability leads to an increase in exclusions which would
suggest that schools are attempting to game the results. Finally, for a
variety of reasons, the effects of accountability may not be uniform.
To identify differences by race or ethnicity, we disaggregate the state
results for whites, blacks, and Hispanics. This approach also permits a
deeper examination of whether the policy creates other unintended
consequences.
Research Findings
Complete details of the results are presented in the full paper;
here, we focus on findings in three key areas: 1) the impact of
accountability on student performance; 2) differences in impact of
accountability across racial/ethnic groups, and 3) evidence of
systematic use of exclusions to improve aggregate results. Each is
discussed separately.
1. Students are better off with accountability.
We find consistent evidence that introduction of state
accountability has a positive impact on student performance.
Specifically, states that introduced consequential accountability
systems early, tended to show more rapid gains in NAEP performance,
holding other inputs and policies constant. Students in states
employing systematic accountability systems policies gained an average
of 3.6 NAEP points more than students in states that had no
accountability. This equates to roughly a fifth of a standard
distribution greater gains.
Interestingly, we find that just using report cards does not have a
significant influence on performance. Students in states that operate
report card accountability policies do show slightly positive gains,
but they are not significantly different from zero. Thus, it seems
important that policies include direct incentives rather than rely on
indirect forces operating through just information.
Other interesting findings of the model concern endowments for
students and for schools. Large differences in per pupil funding did
not influence scores. The pattern of NAEP scores across states is not
explained by spending. The impact of aggregate state spending is
consistently small and statistically insignificant. We also find that
test taking rates affect performance, but that differences in these
rates across states does not affect our conclusions on accountability.
2. Accountability helps all students, but helps some more than others.
Much of the explicit interest in accountability and the federal
legislation, however, focuses on low achievers. The differences in both
absolute achievement and in rates of change by race and ethnicity are
well known. Given the generally lower achievement by minority groups,
an implicit assumption is that accountability--as revealed through
mandatory disaggregation of performance for racial and ethnic groups--
will simultaneously close the large achievement racial/ethnic gaps
along with improving all performance.
Since earlier research had assumed that accountability was
equivalent across all students, we examined the impact of
accountability policies by race. When we look specifically at the
performance of subgroups, we find that Hispanic students gain most from
accountability while blacks gain least. That is, accountability
provides Hispanics an extra boost relative to whites, but for Black
students, the relative effect is negative. To be clear, all students
benefit some from the presence of a consequential accountability
system, but some benefit more than others. What this means is that
blacks still gain a little from having accountability with consequences
but not as much as whites, and Hispanics gain more than whites.
A summary of the effects of accountability on student performance
by race is presented in the table below.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4513.006
Accountability systems thus lead to overall improvements in student
performance on NAEP mathematics and reading tests, but they do not
uniformly meet the objective of closing achievement gaps. In states
with consequential accountability, the white-Hispanic difference in
gains narrowed in the 1990's, but the white-black differences in gains
widened. This finding appears to be a single demonstration of the well-
known principal that satisfying multiple objectives with a single
policy instrument is generally not feasible.
3. Accountability systems do not appear to prompt gaming of results
through exclusions.
Since the widespread introduction of accountability, a strong
interest has been whether more rigorous and consequential
accountability also leads to other, less desirable impacts. For
example, does accountability lead to increased cheating, more
classifications of students as special education, or undesirable
narrowing of teaching? To address a subset of these issues, we analyzed
the rate of placement into special education across states but find no
evidence of reaction in this dimension. Other researchers have found
that the levels of special education placement differed before and
after the adoption of accountability policies, and therefore conclude
that accountability influenced the rates of placement. Our study of the
issue, focused on the period 1995--2000, captured the period of largest
activity in accountability adoption by states and also the historical
trend of rising special education rates. The findings show that neither
having an accountability system nor the number of years one is in place
significantly effect the general trend in special education placement
rates.
Interpreting the Results
The importance of improved academic outcomes cannot be overstated.
Higher achievement, as measured by the tests commonly used for
accountability has been shown to have large impacts on the earnings of
individuals and on the growth of the economy. To put the matter in
context, if we could move the average achievement of students to what
is today the 75th percentile, we would realize a boost in future
productivity and earnings that would equal the total amount spent on K-
12 public education in the United States. In essence, we could
completely fund American public primary and secondary education from
the growth it would stimulate. Policies such as accountability can
contribute meaningfully to such a result.
We must use caution in drawing implications from the results
presented here for No Child Left Behind. Because NCLB calls for each
state to design its own system and because most states have keyed off
of their existing systems, the analysis here of the impacts of state
systems enacted prior to NCLB provides information about what can be
expected with full implementation.
The most meaningful result is that accountability is important for
students in the United States (and in a variety of other countries that
are pushing for better performance measurement). Despite the
heterogeneity of designs (and the flaws they contain), we find that
they have a positive impact on achievement.
However, the impact holds just for states attaching consequences to
performance. States that simply provide better information through
report cards without attaching consequences to performance do not get
significantly larger impacts over no accountability. Thus, the NCLB
move toward adding consequences to accountability systems is supported
by looking at the historic introduction of consequential accountability
systems. These findings suggest that other incentives mechanisms might
be appropriate to try to further accelerate student gains.
We find that the overall positive effect of accountability varies
by subgroup, with Hispanics benefiting most and blacks benefiting
least. All students are better off with accountability than without it.
But in relative terms, when the effects of the pre-existing achievement
gap and accountability are taken together, accountability is seen to
mitigate but not reverse a widening of the achievement gap. This is
because whites gain more than blacks after accountability is
introduced, so the racial achievement gap with blacks actually widens
after the introduction of accountability.
These findings, taken together, underscore the fact that there is
no one answer that will lead to all of the improvements that we desire.
The finding of differential effects of accountability raises a clear
policy dilemma. A prime reason for the U.S. federal government to
require each state to develop a test based accountability system
involved raising the achievement of all students, particularly those at
the bottom. It has done that, but not at the same rate across groups.
We conclude from this that additional policies are needed to deal with
the multiple objectives. Again, as is frequently the case, a single
policy cannot effectively work for two different objectives--raising
overall student performance and providing more equal outcomes across
groups.
The movement toward stronger accountability in schools has also
suggested to many that there would be adverse consequences--more
exclusions, higher dropout rates, a narrowing of the curriculum, and
the like. While some existing research supports these presumptions, the
work presented here (and supported by our earlier work) suggests that
these concerns are overstated. Importantly, many of the adverse effects
that involve ``gaming'' the system come from short run incentives that
are unlikely to be strongly present over time. Our analysis of special
education placement rates indicates clearly that accountability has not
had an overall impact through this form of exclusions.
Finally, while we have not dwelled on it, the currently available
accountability systems are not particularly strong. A majority of the
systems concentrates on overall achievement levels (with highly
variable passing scores across states). Such systems do not generally
provide clear signals about the value-added of schools. Instead they
combine a variety of effects including those resulting from family
background differences and neighborhood effects. As such, they cannot
provide truly clear and strong incentives. Yet, even in the face of the
rather blunt incentives from existing systems, the introduction of an
accountability systems leads to achievement improvements on the order
of 0.2 standard deviations. If we are able to realize this magnitude of
effect with such blunt instruments as exist today, it seems plausible
that we could get additional gains if the systems are refined. The
benefits of accountability, while not revolutionary, are notable when
compared to the failure to find alternative reforms that yield such
impacts on a broad and sustained basis. As accountability systems
evolve, they are likely to have considerably stronger impacts if they
can be moved in the direction of more precise incentives for individual
schools.
______
[Attachments to Dr. Raymond's statement have been retained
in the Committee's official files.]
Chairman Boehner. Thank you.
Dr. Smith.
STATEMENT OF DR. ERIC SMITH, SUPERINTENDENT, ANNE ARUNDEL
COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND
Dr. Smith. Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be
before you this morning. I'm Eric Smith, superintendent of
schools in Anne Arundel County, Maryland. I would like to say
that the changes that I have witnessed in Anne Arundel County,
and previously in Charlotte-Mecklenburg, are certainly profound
and very, very positive.
I'll start with some of the major impacts of the No Child
Left Behind legislation on how we look at education in America,
that we actually view the business of education differently
today as a result of the legislation than we did before. And as
a result of us looking at education differently, we're coming
up with different answers and different solutions that I do
believe will end up in sustained progress in the years ahead.
I'll point out one is a different view of our
responsibility as educators, what we are in fact tasked to do.
A shift from when I started in the business 32 years ago, from
a view of pre-kindergarten through twelfth grade really having
a function of sorting and sifting children then and helping to
select those that needed to move on to higher education, to a
view today of universal achievement at a high level. That shift
is significant in how we view education in America.
The second is one--a view of our own capacity as educators.
I truly believe, even today, there are many educators that
don't believe that all children have the capacity to exceed and
excel. Certainly, historically we have not demonstrated that we
hold that belief dear. In fact, because of No Child Left Behind
and the requirement of the legislation, we as educators are
looking at the business of teaching and learning differently in
our understanding and increasing our confidence in our capacity
to have achievement success with children from all backgrounds.
I'll share also that the culture of education is changing,
and these are some of the substantive issues that are bringing
about a different result. We're moving from viewing education
and the business of teaching as primarily an art form, that--
whereas--that has success on a random occurrence--schedule--to
one of more strategic planning and teaching as a science. And
this shift has resulted in very strong performance.
I'd--result--I'll share with you this year's results from
my current district. I cite two areas: one, third-grade
reading. We made a 15-point increase in academic--in proficient
or advanced level performance to 78 percent of our children
proficient or above. For African-American children, it was a
16-point increase from--to 61 percent proficient or above.
Hispanic/Latino, an 18-point gain to 61 percent proficient or
advanced. At the cost of No Child, for white children, a 13-
point gain to 83 percent proficient or advanced. And there was
no subgroup that fell behind.
Let's skip then to fifth-grade mathematics. I want to share
with you that we showed a smaller increase but nevertheless--
excuse me, we showed a significant increase of 12 percent gain
across the board to 76 percent of our children proficient or
advanced. Again, gains for African-Americans of 17 percent;
Hispanic/Latino, 22 percent; and white students, of 10
percentage points. And again, no subgroup failed to make
progress under the No Child Left Behind legislation.
There are key issues that I think are fundamental. One is
the issue of belief. The belief system that is embodied in the
No Child Left Behind legislation is critical, in my view, to
this nation's future. It is the key issue holding firm to the
fact that children can learn and learn to the high level. The
question is, learn what and at what level they will learn and
achieve, is the question.
The second is defining the work. What work do we expect our
teachers to do every day in a classroom? One of the things
we've learned from urban centers and other school districts
across the country is that with lack of clarity as to what
teaching and knowledge is to be imparted, we will not succeed.
So the question for the nation--we look at NAEP results and
others--are we moving our children to a competitive position as
a result of this effort around No Child Left Behind? Again, are
we asking our teachers to do the right work? I think it's
becoming increasingly clear that our teachers have the capacity
to deliver when they know what the work is that's to be done.
The third critical issue in school districts and in
application is one of time. Time is a critical piece, how you
manage time, allowing teachers the time to cover the material
that needs to be covered.
Fourth area is the tools, and it's probably one of the
biggest struggles that we have. How do we bring the right tools
to the classroom so teachers can be successful? Our inability
to get to good, clean, non-vendor-produced research around
products--reading materials, math materials--that help our
teachers succeed is a critical area that requires further work
and further assistance.
And finally, allowing our classrooms and our schools to
have good, clean data, so that we can make decisions in a
timely fashion.
The final point--I can see the red light--the final point
that I will share is, probably the most intriguing issue is
around special education. I think that there are going to be
strategies in the coming months and years that will help us to
redefine the issue of special education and allow us to bring
success to children that have historically been under-served,
and see the same kind of gains with the special education
population that we are seeing with other subgroups under No
Child Left Behind.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Smith follows:]
Statement of Dr. Eric J. Smith, Superintendent, Anne Arundel County
Public Schools, Annapolis, Maryland
The recent renewal of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
known as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, is vital to the long
term educational, economic, and social health of our nation. Its'
mandate that schools must assess student performance yearly, share
these data about disaggregated student groups, and provide consequences
for schools failing to achieve Adequate Yearly Progress, has
highlighted the issue that I have focused on as the Superintendent of
four different school districts--that each child's education is
important. This law has fundamentally transformed the debate about
public education in this country by changing the discussion from one
about the lack of student achievement and issues beyond the control of
schools and school systems to one about using research-proven
strategies to ensure that each child can read, compute, and write on
grade level. The meaningful dialogue that has been generated could not
have come at a more important time for our country. The changing
demographics in our country have led to a more diverse student
population; for example, students in my district speak over 60
different languages. With such diversity, it is important to prepare
all children, recent immigrants and native born alike, to high
standards so that they may fully participate in our society.
Thankfully, in some schools we are making a difference, educating all
students to high levels. This should not occur just in shining new
suburban schools sitting on a hill, but in every school across our
nation, and that is our singular goal in Anne Arundel County--creating
the opportunities for an excellent education for all 75,000 students in
our district. If you believe as I do that the quality of education a
child receives impacts their entire life, then the accountability
measures of the No Child Left Behind Act are an important component of
the effort to reinvent American public education. Accountability, in
conjunction with other factors such as clarity about what should be
taught; providing teachers and students with the time to teach and
learn; using resources efficiently and effectively to maximize their
power, and providing teachers with professional development that
enables them to grow as professionals, can lead to sustained growth for
all students.
Clarity about what to teach
Anne Arundel County Public Schools has just received the results of
its mandated state assessment in grades 3, 5, 8, and 10. These results
demonstrate the importance of accountability in my district. We knew
that for the last year school, 2002-2003, 63.8% of all third graders
were proficient and advanced in reading. Some might think it is great
that nearly two-thirds of the district's third graders were proficient
in reading, but it highlighted for everyone that more than one-third of
our third graders were basic in reading. I refuse to accept that some
students can learn at high levels and that some students can't. This is
something that we were able to focus on and improve. For the 2003-2004
school year, 78.5% of third graders were proficient/advanced.
How were we able to accomplish this improvement? We were able to
clarify what was to be taught. This clarity began with the state
developing a curriculum that was aligned with the state mandated
assessment. However, Anne Arundel County went further. We adopted the
tenets of the state curriculum and constructed curriculum guides and
pacing guides that provided teachers for the first time clear direction
about what to teach and when they should be teaching it. These guides
have reduced the need to spend teacher instructional time deciding what
to teach. Our teachers can now spend more time deciding how to best
engage students with the curriculum.
Another factor of clarity was the importance of providing teachers
with a research based curriculum to teach reading and a structured math
curriculum that would ensure that all students were given a solid
foundation from which they could successfully participate in higher
level courses. The use of both a published reading and math series has
shown marked results for our students, with double-digit improvement in
students' performance on statewide assessment. We have also increased
the number of students taking and completing algebra I (a high school
level course) in middle school to 21% of all 8th grade students, a
substantial increase over the previous year.
Providing teachers and students with the time to teach and learn
An important step was the restructuring of the way our teachers and
students spend their school day. In our elementary schools, we asked
teachers to spend double the amount of time they previously spent on
reading instruction. This was done to ensure that students were reading
on grade level, but it also will assist our special education
population because research shows that many of the students identified
as learning disabled are students that were not properly taught how to
read. In our secondary schools, we established a block schedule of four
90-minute classes per day on a rotating A/B day schedule. This schedule
allows students at all achievement levels the flexibility to change
their schedule to meet their individual needs. For example, a student
who wants to participate in Advanced Placement chemistry and band now
has a schedule that permits such action, while a student who needs
additional support can also have an Advanced Placement seminar or other
support class that will provide them with additional time to grasp key
concepts covered in their regular class.
Using resources efficiently and effectively
In this age of heightened accountability, it is imperative that
public schools demonstrate to the public at large that we are utilizing
the resources that we are provided as efficiently and effectively as
possible. While I recognize that there have been additional funds
allocated as a result of the No Child Left Behind legislation, I
believe that more resources used effectively will ensure that this
landmark legislation has the intended impact in all school districts.
In Anne Arundel County Public Schools, we use a management system
called the Project Management Oversight Committee. This committee acts
as a governing body to establish strategies, monitor progress, and
resolve issues that would prevent cross-departmental cooperation. In
this way, our system continually examines its practices, how it is
spending its resources, and most importantly, the return on this
investment.
One example of an initiative that went through this PMOC process is
the building of a data warehouse. In Anne Arundel County, we have had
to find a new vehicle for capturing, recording, and analyzing student
achievement data. This will require the district to spend financial
resources to fulfill this mandate, and yet these funds could also be
used elsewhere. In this case, we recognize the impact that this new
data collection and analysis system will have on classroom teachers and
students, and we feel that the expense is justified, but again
additional financial resources would be helpful.
Teacher professional development
The quality of the teachers in Anne Arundel County is second to
none. I am awed by their ability, and the recent results of our state
mandated assessments point to their knowledge, competence, and
willingness to work with our students to increase student achievement.
I feel that it is important to provide teachers with meaningful and
ongoing professional development that will allow them to work with
their peers and increase their content and teaching knowledge. We have
instituted mentoring programs for beginning teachers and provide all
teachers with a rich assortment of activities that seek to increase
their effectiveness in the classrooms of Anne Arundel County.
Conclusion
The No Child Left Behind Act has transformed the debate about
public education in America from blaming societal issues outside of
schools' control to a focus on what we do control--our ability to teach
every child to rigorous standards. This may be its central legacy.
However the law is only the beginning. It requires a new level of
accountability, but it does not provide all the answers or funds for
what ails public education. I see it as a component of the plan that I
have used in my tenure as Superintendent of Schools of Anne Arundel
County--a plan that is beginning to demonstrate that all students can
learn and achieve at high levels. I initially proved this plan when I
was Superintendent of Schools in Charlotte Mecklenburg Public Schools.
I focused on the achievement disparity between African American
children and their peers and was able to reduce the ``gap'' as
evidenced by the results of the Trial Urban National Assessment of
Educational Performance. The improvements in all students'
performances, but especially African American students, demonstrated to
me that accountability is not the end result of public education
reform. It is merely an integral component of a well-crafted
comprehensive strategy for educating all students to high levels that
requires clarity about what is taught, time to teach and learn,
efficient and effective utilization of resources, and meaningful
professional development for teachers. Given these components and
accountability No Child Left Behind may accomplish what the name
implies--that schools will indeed Leave No Child Left Behind.
______
Chairman Boehner. Thank you.
Mr. Vallas? Nice to see you. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF PAUL VALLAS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SCHOOL
DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Vallas. Nice to see you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you--sorry about that. How's that? Thank you.
Like any broad and sweeping reform of its nature, the No
Child Left Behind Act has certainly drawn a great deal of
attention recently. Passionate advocates for and against the
act have filled the airwaves, the newspapers, and sometimes
their own backyards with rhetoric espousing its virtues and
deriding its failures. While there is certainly room for debate
on the pros and cons of the act, there can be little doubt--
little debate about this fact: There is simply no time to waste
when it comes to setting high expectations for our children,
providing the needed resources for children to meet these
expectations, and holding adults accountable for achieving
these expectations.
As head of America's sixth-largest school district, it's my
belief that No Child Left Behind lays the groundwork for
accomplishing the objectives. And we've made every effort to
accomplish its mandates.
The chief objective of the act is closing the achievement
gap between majority groups and minority groups. The greatest
tool of No Child Left Behind to achieve this objective, and I
suspect the greatest object of consternation among many of my
colleagues, is the disaggregation of test scores by subgroup.
For the first time, we're able to shine a spotlight on groups
that have been historically under-served. With this recognition
comes our obligation to correct this historic imbalance and to
structure the act so that it provides an opportunity to do so.
Let me point out that 50 years after Brown versus Board of
Education, at least over the last 20 years, the achievement gap
is widening, and indeed, we've moved from segregated schools 50
years ago to entirely segregated school districts 50 years
later.
The school district of Philadelphia has aggressively
implemented all four phases of No Child Left Behind over the
past 2 years. Those four phases are expanding comprehensive
school choice options; providing intensive supplemental
education services for the lowest-performing schools, for
students who in effect don't have options to go anywhere else;
implementing a rigorous corrective action plan for schools not
making adequate yearly progress; and finally, aggressively
recruiting highly qualified teachers.
The handouts that I provided provide you with a list of our
initiatives in detail under each of those four categories, but
let me just summarize a few of them.
Under expanding comprehensive school choice, you'll note
that the district has 176 out of 263 schools identified as low
performing schools, with over 45,000 children choosing to
enroll this year in schools outside their neighborhood schools.
Now the district has not only implemented the choice provisions
mandated under No Child Left Behind, but we've expanded our
choice provisions by creating charters and by magnetizing our
neighborhood schools by putting exemplary programs, like
International Baccalaureate programs, math, science, and
technology academy programs--exemplary programs in neighborhood
schools--and by breaking our large high schools, behemoth high
schools into small neighborhood schools forming a neighborhood
cluster, so you're creating school choice within individual
neighborhoods.
Under the provision calling for intensive supplemental
education services in low performing schools, the district has
targeted assistance to over 40,000 K through 9 students
performing below grade level and over 60,000 summer school
children who are under-performing.
Now what we've done is we've created our own individualized
unit, educational unit, qualifying for SES, Supplemental
Educational Service, designation status, so the district,
working through contract providers, can provide supplemental
educational services in a very cost effective way. And I think
our after-school extended-day program costs us about $300 per
student as opposed to $1200 to $1800 that many of the private
providers independently are providing. Plus allowing us to
serve all the children who are not performing at grade level,
or at least to make those services available. Again, I have a
handout that details that issue.
Third, under implementing corrective action plans in all of
our schools, the district has developed mandatory rigorous and
uniform K-12 standard-based instruction. Delivery models--we've
really established an instructional, a managed instructional
model that includes standardized curriculum, standardized
intervention procedures, standardized professional development,
an additional 100 hours of professional development for
teachers, and has increased the amount of instructional time on
task for children who are under-performing, so that they can
close the gap by basically being provided with additional
instructional time based in a quality classroom environment.
Finally, the district has wholeheartedly embraced the
provision requiring aggressive recruitment and retention of
highly qualified teachers by doing alternative teacher
certification, Teach America, Troops for Teachers, and by
allowing retirees who reach retirement age to come back on
contract and to continue to teach while collecting their--while
being able collect their full pension benefits.
Again, the school district has moved aggressively to
implement the acts. Obviously there are issues that need to be
addressed: the full funding of special education, the full
funding of the mandates. You know, the district certainly can
use additional money so that we can invest in the type of
curriculum instructional initiatives that truly make a
difference. But the bottom line is, I think, our district has
demonstrated that we can move forward with the additional
resources that we've been provided, and that we can engage in
the type of best practices that will, in effect, close the gap.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Vallas follows:]
Statement of Paul G. Vallas, Chief Executive Officer, School District
of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Good morning. Thank you Chairman Boehner, Senior Democratic Member
Miller, and other distinguished members of the Committee on Education
and the Workforce for this opportunity to appear before you today. When
Chairman Boehner asked me to testify here today on Philadelphia's
implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, I was both honored and
humbled to appear. And given the Committee's focus on raising student
achievement in urban school districts, I was delighted to accept his
offer.
Like any broad and sweeping reform of its nature, the No Child Left
Behind Act has certainly drawn a great deal of attention recently.
Passionate advocates both for and against the Act have filled the
airwaves, the newspapers, and sometimes their own backyards with
rhetoric espousing its virtues or deriding its failures. While there is
certainly room for debate on the pros and cons of the Act, there can be
little debate about this fact: there is simply no time to waste when it
comes to setting high expectations for our children, providing the
needed resources for children to meet these expectations, and holding
adults accountable for achieving these expectations. As the head of
America's sixth largest school district, it is my belief that the No
Child Left Behind Act lays the groundwork for accomplishing these
objectives, and I have made every effort to accomplish its mandates.
The chief objective of the Act is closing the achievement gap
between majority groups and minority groups. The greatest tool that
NCLB provides to achieve this objective--and, I suspect, the greatest
object of consternation of some of my colleagues--is the disaggregation
of test scores by subgroup. For the first time, we are able to shine a
spotlight on groups that have been historically underserved. With this
recognition comes our obligation to provide whatever resources we have
to correct this historic imbalance, and the structure of the Act
provides districts with the opportunity to do so.
The School District of Philadelphia has aggressively implemented
all four phases of No Child Left Behind over the past two years. Those
four phases are ``Expanding Comprehensive School Choice Options,''
providing ``Intensive Supplementary Education Services in Low
Performing Schools,'' ``Implementing a Rigorous Corrective Action Plan
for Schools Not Making Adequate Yearly Progress,'' and ``Aggressively
Recruiting Highly Qualified Teachers.'' The handout you have been
given, entitled ``School District of Philadelphia: Programming to
Implement No Child Left Behind Legislation'' details what we have
accomplished under each of these phases, but I would like to draw your
attention to a few highlights.
Under ``Expanding Comprehensive School Choice Options,'' you will
note that the District has 176 out of our 263 schools identified as low
performing schools. With that, over 45,000 students chose to enroll
this year in schools outside of their neighborhood schools. But the
District went beyond the limits of ``choice'' as a decision to be made
between your neighborhood school and a ``higher performing school.'' In
addition to meeting the choice mandates of No Child Left Behind, we
have also formed innovative new school-by-school partnerships with
universities, museums, private managers, and even companies like
Microsoft to manage and assist our lowest performing schools. We have
also seeded our schools with magnet programs, International
Baccalaureate programs, honors classes, dual credit offerings, and
advanced placement courses to provide real choice to our parents. The
School District has enacted a 300% increase in the number of honors and
advanced placement courses, because we believe that closing the ``high
achievement'' gap is just as critical as closing the ``remedial'' gap
for our children.
Under the provision calling for ``Intensive Supplementary Education
Services in Low Performing Schools,'' the District has targeted
assistance for over 40,000 Grade 1-9 students performing below grade
level in reading and mathematics through the implementation of a
comprehensive extended day academic program in all district elementary,
middle, and comprehensive high schools during the 2003-2004 school
year. The District has also implemented a comprehensive mandatory six-
week summer school academic program in reading and mathematics for over
58,000 Grade 3-10 students not meeting promotion requirements or
performing below grade level. The District has contracted with Voyager,
Princeton Review, and Kaplan to provide the curriculum and the
professional development for these programs.
The second part of your handout deals specifically with
Supplemental Education Services, and I feel it is important to draw
your attention to one of the provisions of NCLB here and how the School
District of Philadelphia implemented its requirements. As the briefing
indicates, Pennsylvania has approved, and the School District of
Philadelphia has contracted with, 20 providers of Supplemental
Education Services. The District's Intermediate Unit (Pennsylvania's
version of ``Education Service Agencies'' has also been approved as a
provider, so services to low-achieving students through Voyager and
Princeton Review can also receive funding under this provision. We
fully support the provision that calls for parents to be able to choose
between different providers for tutoring and support for their child,
and I certainly support a free-market model that has these providers
compete to provide the best services. But in order to serve the largest
number of students with the limited amount of resources we had
available, the District pursued the IU-provider model and contracted
directly with private providers. Under this model, the District was
able to serve 40,000 children for 160 hours of instruction at $300 per
child.
Under ``Implementing a Rigorous Corrective Action Plan for Schools
Not Making Adequate Yearly Progress,'' the District has developed a
mandatory, rigorous, and uniform K-12 standards-based curriculum,
instructional delivery models, instructional materials, and aligned
professional development system for low-performing schools. We have
also implemented a uniform district-wide assessment system to
complement the results from our state assessment to provide yearly
benchmarks for district and school accountability. As your handout
indicates, we have provided a number of additional resources to provide
support for our schools lagging behind in AYP. This includes changes in
the management, structure, and organization of low performing schools
that cannot demonstrate improved performance; 49 failing schools in
Philadelphia were restructured with private and charter school
management, 22 comprehensive high schools have implemented 9th grade
academies designed to narrow the achievement gaps of students below
grade level in reading and mathematics, and a number of failing middle
schools have been converted into neighborhood K-8 magnet and high
school programs.
Finally, the District has wholeheartedly embraced the provisions
requiring the ``Aggressive Recruitment and Retention of Highly
Qualified Teachers.'' Under our Campaign for Human Capital, the
District hired over 1200 new teachers this year working with programs
like Troops for Teachers, Teach for America, our retired teacher
program, and aggressive recruitment and retention practices. Even in
spite of a substantive class-size reduction in grades K-3, which
necessitated the hiring of an additional 400 teachers, we met our
hiring objectives and opened the school year with almost no teacher
vacancies.
The School District of Philadelphia has chosen to aggressively
implement the No Child Left Behind Act because its tenets are sound and
its goals are clear: we must do all that we can to ensure that all of
our children are reaching their full potential. There is certainly room
for improvement, however. While no one should deny that meaningful
increases in federal education funding have been achieved under No
Child Left Behind (a 36% increase since 2001), providing more Title I
resources, which can be used rather flexibly to support proven
successful practices like reduced class size and after school
assistance, should be a priority. Providing transportation resources
for choice programs, which for Philadelphia has meant more than $7
million in additional costs, would be a welcome assistance. Moving
closer to a 40% funding of special education versus the current 18%
funding is critical as disaggregated data shows how woefully inadequate
our special education resources are. And complementing a standards and
accountability movement such as the No Child Left Behind Act with a
desperately needed school construction assistance program would be a
smart investment in districts like Philadelphia whose walls have
sometimes fallen faster than our test scores in past years.
While we can't shortchange our children by failing to fund reforms,
neither can we hold their futures hostage by waiting for a never-ending
funding debate to resolve itself. The School District of Philadelphia
has demonstrated that substantial education reform can be achieved by
using existing resources to fund education priorities. In short, our
philosophy is about sending all available dollars into the classroom.
We will continue to use the tools provided us under the No Child Left
Behind Act to accomplish this, and we will not allow excuses to get in
the way of achievement. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide
comment here today, and I welcome any questions you may have.
______
[Attachments to Mr. Vallas' statement follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4513.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4513.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4513.009
------
Chairman Boehner. Thank you.
Dr. Newsome.
STATEMENT OF DR. MARCUS J. NEWSOME, SUPERINTENDENT, NEWPORT
NEWS COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, NEWPORT NEWS, VIRGINIA
Dr. Newsome. Good morning. Good morning. My name is Marcus
Newsome, superintendent of Newport News public schools. I want
to thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this morning
regarding the achievement gap in public education.
This is a real problem that must be solved if the dream of
equal opportunity is to become a reality for all children in
America. Our school division has 130--I'm sorry, 33,000
students, which is considered a moderately sized urban school
district. Forty-five percent of our students qualify for free
or reduced federally subsidized meals.
I was very pleased that the successes of our school
division: four of our five high schools were recently
identified as among the best high schools in America based on
its performance on AP and International Baccalaureate programs,
again, identified by Newsweek magazine. Eleven of our schools
have been identified as Blue Ribbon Schools of Excellence by
the Federal Government, and this is the largest number of
schools of any school system in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
For the seventh consecutive year, our school system has
been selected by School-Match for What Parents Want Award, and
the School-Match is a national recognized service that helps
corporations and employees and families locate schools that
match the needs of their children.
And we have a program called Pair Schools Model, where
schools that have made the leap from good to great are paired
with other schools that have not yet made that leap. And this
model is receiving national recognition. In fact, we have 17
schools from Bristol, England, that have adopted this model.
We have challenges, just as other school districts around
the country. This year is the first year that Virginia has
required exit exams for students to receive a high school
diploma. When I came to the school district in August of 2003,
30 percent of all seniors were in danger of not getting a
diploma because they had not yet passed all six exit exams. But
with the commitment of the staff and a focused process, we
developed individualized academic plans for every single
senior. And we are proud to say that as of last Friday, we
reduced that number from 30 percent of our seniors who were in
danger of not graduating to 1 percent. And so when we have a
focused effort and the appropriate support, then we can
accomplish the goal.
In 1999, only one school met full accreditation by the
Virginia Standards of Excellence--of Learning, I'm sorry. And
in 2003, we have 26 schools. And unofficially, all high schools
will be fully accredited when the results come out this school
year.
We often, as school systems, talk about our
accomplishments, but unfortunately too many of our students are
not being successful. Nationwide on the SAT exam, on the verbal
portion of the exam, there's a 95 percent gap between white
students and black students. And in the mathematics portion of
the exam, there's a 108-point gap between white students and
black students.
According to the Educational Trust, the average African-
American student in the twelfth grade is reading on an eighth-
grade level. Only 7 percent of the students nationwide are
enrolled in advanced placement courses and--statistics--are
black students. The graduation gap is real also. In Virginia,
the graduation rate is 64 percent for black students, 77
percent for white students; and yeah, it's still too low.
No Child Left Behind has focused our efforts on improving
the quality of education for every student and accountability.
And I think accountability is what we must focus on. This year
we had an independent auditor to come in, Phi Delta Kappa, to
conduct a curriculum instructional audit of our school system.
And while they found that we had people who were working hard,
they have a formula called Years to Parity, and they said if we
continued to do business as usual, our minority groups would
never reach parity in all of our schools. But, again, we are
encouraged by the success that we see now.
I would like to close by sharing the success of one program
in our school system called An Achievable Dream Academy. It has
the highest level of poverty in our school system. Ninety-eight
percent of the students qualify for free or reduced federally
subsidized meals. Ninety-eight percent of them are minority.
Yet they have exceeded every standard. They have met full
accreditation. They have met AYP. And they have done this
because we have a community partnership.
Rod Paige visited the school last week and he deemed it as
one of the models for America. The Mutual of America, which is
a Fortune 500 company, identified it as the most outstanding
partnership program in the country from more than 700 entries,
because these students achieve. The businesses, the military,
the city government, local universities support the students in
this school. They go to school 2 hours a day longer than their
counterparts, 6 days a week, year-round. And these businesses
provide $2000 more per year per student and guarantee every
child a college scholarship.
So I think the model is it needs to be a collaborative
partnership, and in closing I would say, in the words of Jim
Collins, who was the author of the best-selling book ``From
Good to Great,'' if we expect schools to be great, we should
also expect government to be great. And businesses to be great.
And churches. And most importantly, families.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Newsome follows:]
Statement of Dr. Marcus Newsome, Superintendent, Newport News County
Public Schools, Newport News, Virginia
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4513.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4513.011
------
Chairman Boehner. Thank you, Dr. Newsome, and thank all of
our witnesses for your excellent testimony.
I've got so many questions I want to ask, I don't know
where to begin. Let me ask the three school chiefs that are
here to identify for me the biggest change that you've made
over the last several years that have led to better test
results, the biggest change you've made and the biggest
challenge that you have in terms of what we can be helpful with
you all.
Mr. Vallas. I think the biggest change in that has brought
about the strongest gains, the strongest improvement has been
establishing a managed instructional system.
If you look at all the research, if you look at the
districts that have shown great success--and the counselors in
grade schools a number of years ago did a wonderful study of
large urban districts like Charlotte-Mecklenberg and others who
had great city schools in New York that had wonderful success.
And if you look at individual schools within larger districts
that have had great success, there are some common
characteristics. They have a very well managed instructional
system. They have high academic standards. They have curriculum
and instructional models that are aligned with those standards.
What is done at every grade level is aligned with what's done
at the next grade level. They provide intensive professional
development on the curriculum instructional models. To close
the gap, they increase the amount of instructional time on
task, after school, extended day, summer school for children
who are academically struggling as opposed to dummying down the
curriculum in every grade level. They do things like class size
reduction when they have the resources. But those commonalities
exist in all school districts that have shown significant
success.
So the problem is only until recently have districts begun
to really focus on where they need to focus to improve
instruction and that's the classroom.
For years, we did everything but managed instruction in the
classroom. So a managed instructional system is I think
absolutely critical to advancing academic performance.
Now the greatest challenge we face is parental involvement,
because when you look at the gap--you may look at high
performing, high poverty schools, but a lot of times when you
look at the level of parental involvement in those high poverty
schools, particularly these open enrollment magnet schools that
seem to do very well, yet, they don't set minimum academic
requirements for enrollment, you see parents immersed in their
children's education.
So the greatest challenge that we face, and you're seeing
it more and more, is the statistics that you see about children
starting school in kindergarten, children in first grade,
second grade, engaging in the type of bad behavior that you
would normally expect--well, hopeful not normally expect, but
you would not be surprised that many of the older children
engaging in. There clearly is a parenting problem that needs to
be addressed.
So the biggest challenge we face as a school district is
coming up with the support programs to get parents more engaged
and more involved and more supportive in their children's
education.
Chairman Boehner. Dr. Newsome.
Dr. Newsome. I think the biggest change is the focus on
strong curriculum, the alignment of that curriculum with the
expected outcomes and assessments and the accountability that
goes along with that.
I can't get past the comment that was just made, the
concern about parent involvement. That is essential to the
success of our schools. But because that's already been said, I
will speak to another challenge and that's teacher quality.
Once the children leave the home, come into our schools, we
have a critical shortage across this nation with qualified
applicants. And with the upcoming retirement of many of the
baby boomers, we are even more concerned about the shortage.
The No Child Left Behind legislation has now established,
certainly in many states, an even higher threshold for
qualifications. To me, it's intriguing that we are now asking
teachers to have this level of qualifications in terms of their
licensure, but we aren't asking the college professors and
those people who train the teachers to have that same level of
accountability in terms of providing quality instruction for
our students, and to make sure that we have quality training
for these teachers.
Chairman Boehner. Dr. Smith.
Dr. Smith. I'd just add, again, the key issue is clarity of
the work, what do we expect our teachers to do. And for--we
historically just have not done that well in our classrooms. We
have viewed teaching as an art form where great people are
allowed to work with kids and do marvelous things and on
occasion it worked. But the clarity of what is expected, what
does a third grader need to know to be a proficient reader, to
understand and be competent in mathematics, to excel at an
expectable level in high school classrooms?
What is the standard and how do we decipher that? And the
challenge to do that is incredible, that historically what we
give teachers, 22 year old teachers when they begin the job, a
mound of documents from state departments that confuse the best
of us and descriptions that are too brief to re-explain to the
teachers the nature of the work. And it's that definition of
the clarity of the work--and what the Nation needs to worry
about is that as we work, as systems work to clarify what
teachers do every day is that clarification at that level we
expect as a nation.
Are we asking, in fact, enough? And my fear is that perhaps
even the standards we have today are still too low, that we
have to expect more of our kids even though we are having
difficulties reaching these.
The critical point--biggest challenge I see, and I try to
focus on the things that I think I have at least some vague
degree of control over. I'm not going to make a big difference
in the nature of the homes. I'm not going to make a big
difference in the workforces coming to me. The issues that I'm
really concerned about is our ability to access tools that are
going to be productive for teachers.
There are too many be it textbooks or other strategies that
are promoted that have absolutely no basis and fact in terms of
helping children to excel, and weeding them out, sorting that
our as superintendent of schools, is extraordinarily difficult.
The inability for superintendents to tell their community the
best way to teach mathematics and not have good research behind
it is to me shameful, that we need to move to the point where
we can explain that and have good strong research behind it.
Chairman Boehner. I thank all of you. Dr. Casserly, go
right ahead. Sorry.
Dr. Casserly. I'd just like to reiterate what the
superintendents have indicated. As far as we're concerned at
the Council of the Great City Schools, they are right on target
and one of the reasons they're getting the kinds of gains that
they are getting.
This issue about clarity of purpose and alignment of the
work and accountability for the work and managing the work
rather than it being quite so haphazard and fractured is really
more important than people have understood over the last few
years.
Chairman Boehner. I found that out when I worked in an
urban school district near me that doesn't have a uniform
curriculum in their early and middle schools. That's just
beyond my imagination. You've got a high mobility rate amongst
the students and, yet, they don't have a uniform curriculum
from one building to the next at the same grade level. Now this
is about educating our kids. I can't understand what people are
thinking.
Dr. Casserly. Well, we did a study a couple of years ago
that Mr. Vallas made reference to, a study called ``Foundations
for Success,'' where we took a look at throughout common
factors amongst the faster improving urban school districts and
then tried to contrast it against the practices of the slower
moving districts.
And one of the things that was really common in addition to
the factors that they have already articulated is what you have
articulated, and that is they had a more common, cohesive,
coherent and sometimes prescriptive reading and math program
that didn't send every school off in a different direction. As
we started to take a look at school districts like Washington,
D.C. and St. Louis, both of whom have had our organization into
study their instructional program to make recommendations for
how it is they could improve, what we found in both of those
cases and in other cases was a situation as you have indicated
where every school was pretty much doing whatever they wanted
to do, and the system was hoping for the best. And it was clear
to us that the system itself couldn't hit its targets with
everybody aiming in a different direction.
Mr. Wu. Would the Chairman yield just for a moment?
Chairman Boehner. I'd be happy to.
Mr. Wu. Mr. Chairman, I share your concern about maybe
different classrooms doing different things, but I've heard a
phrase a long time ago that in France, the Minister of
Education on every given day knows from Paris what page of the
textbook every child in France is on. Surely the Chairman is
not suggesting that level of standardization for American
schools.
Chairman Boehner. No, but I do think that having clarity--
we've got state standards. So we know on a grade level what
states are expecting to learn. Most districts have designed
curriculums, most, that fit the standards. How it is taught,
frankly, ought to be left to the ingenuity and the creativity
of the teachers. How it's taught, how that information is
passed on. I don't think we need to know what page every
student is on, but when it's not clear, from a third grade
level in one building to a third grade level in another
building what's expected or what the--no semblance of
curriculum between the two schools, and given the mobility rate
amongst high poverty students, they don't have a chance.
Mr. Vallas. You know, I was going to say in large urban
districts where you have 35 percent mobility rates or in some
schools where you have a 50 percent mobility rate, the lack of
a standardized curriculum is an unmitigated disaster.
But, you know, there's not one single curriculum--make sure
that the schools are all using a quality curriculum, or not one
curriculum but a series of curriculum instructional models
including your interventional curriculums, and make sure that
those curriculum instructional models are aligned to the
standards.
Again, there are a number of reading curriculums that are
very effective. There are number of math curriculums that are
very effective, yet, different schools using those different
curriculum models are having great success. Where they're
having great success it's not because of the specific model as
much as it's because the model is aligned with the standards
and the teachers are taught and trained on their curriculum
instructional model.
We provided this year 100 hours of professional development
on our curriculum instructional model. It did two things. First
of all, it got everybody on the same page so to speak, and it
improved the level of instruction, not only because it improved
the quality of instruction on the part of the teachers. Because
even if you had a teacher teaching out of their area of
certification, if they have talent and they're smart and
they're aggressive and they work hard, and you provide them
with the superior curriculum instructional model and you
provide them with 100 hours of intensive professional
development on that model, you can take an ordinary teacher and
turn them into a superior teacher.
We address this issue of the teacher deficiencies or the
fact that we have so many teachers that are not certified.
Well, equip that teacher for the classroom. When we send our
troops into Afghanistan we equip them with high-tech machinery,
high-tech training, state-of-the-art weaponry. Up until 10, 15
years ago, when we would send a new teacher into the
classroom--I remember when I taught my first time, I got a
science textbook. I think the last science event was Sputnik
and I was not that old when I was teaching. It was not that
long ago, it was the 1970's. No curriculum instructional
models, no clear defined standards.
So I think there's no substitute for the managed
instructional system. Our business is to teach in the
classroom, to instruct, and if you don't manage your
instruction in that classroom, you're not going to be
successful.
Chairman Boehner. Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. This is a battle this morning, but it started
out as the question of whether you think teachers can be
creative when teaching in the classroom. It would seem to me if
children can learn to read at grade level and be proficient in
second, third, and fourth grade, they will have additional time
available to them for a lot of other activities that aren't
taken up in remedial activities or catch-up activities or all
the rest of that.
I'd like to just address a question here, and I think, Dr.
Raymond, I'd like you to cover this, too. You talked about
gains from accountability, and then you suggested that the way
you could enhance this, the gains, you said the precise
incentives to schools. I'm not quite sure what you mean by
that, but let me ask the broader question, but maybe that's the
place where you could enter the discussion here.
What is it we can do to enhance the chances that we can
sustain these gains? Now, ideally I assume that if we did a
good job in second grade, we're going to give the third grade
teacher in Chicago or Philadelphia or Charlotte--we're going to
give them a better chance of having success with that third
grader, and that third grader is going to have a better chance
of doing well as a fourth grade on a fourth grade exam. I don't
know if it quite works at that continuum.
So what is it we can do to enhance this 12-year quest for
increased proficiency for these children? And then, sir, what
are the impediments that come to mind to getting that kind of
sustained continuous improvement. And Dr. Raymond, if you want
to comment or start.
Dr. Raymond. I'll take the first crack at that and then
pass it along to others to fill in with their experience.
My sense is that the incentives need to actually be evolved
all the way to the school levels so that we actually tie
rewards and sanctions to performance at the individual school
level.
Mr. Miller. An example of that would be what, if others can
provide.
Dr. Smith. If I could, you know, in my experience in
Charlotte-Mecklenburg, this predates No Child Left Behind
legislation. We did have a statewide performance pay program
that would reward full schools if they met the state growth
requirements in achievement. And I found that to be extremely
successful. And it wasn't simply an issue of monetary reward,
it was more an issue of recognition for accomplishment, that
the work of teachers is being noted within a building. But I
did find that the monetary reward was, pay for performance, was
in my view at this point is a critical component if we're to
achieve the mandate of No Child Left Behind, that it will be
done with performance pay as a part of the package.
Mr. Vallas. I was going to say if you want to sustain
instruction, and the research will show you, not only in the
Council on Great City Schools but research that has been done
by others elsewhere is you have to come up with a curriculum
instructional plan and you have stay with it. You have to stay
with it not for 1 year but for multiple years. That's No. 1.
No. 2, all of your professional development has got to
revolve around training the teachers to the curriculum
instructional models that they are using in the classroom.
We're not talking about--everyday math is not rote
instructional math. Everyday math is one of the most creative,
most innovative math models that are used. Some people think
it's too difficult for the kids and too difficult for the
teachers, but it simply goes beyond math basics. But you've got
to have your curriculum and professional development constantly
train your new teachers and your existing teachers to the
curriculum instructional models that they use in the classroom.
And the third thing is you close the gap by increasing the
amount of instructional time on task. If you have a quality
curriculum instructional plan, if everybody is on the same
wavelength, if the data is driving instruction, if you're
making adjustments in your instruction--every 6 weeks in
Philadelphia we make adjustments in instruction because we're
evaluating how the children are performing every 6 weeks. Are
they hitting the benchmarks? Who's falling behind? Who needs
additional help? Who's moving ahead? Who needs additional
enrichment?
But if you have the children in a quality instructional
program, if they are being provided classroom instruction, if
you increase the amount of instructional time on task for those
children who are behind or those children who are caught in
that so called academic abyss, so to speak, you can in fact
close the gap. Those type of things sustained over an extended
period of time will result in a consistent improvement in
academic performance.
Dr. Newsome. I'd just like to add one thing to that, and
that is the leadership component. We have to make sure that we
have a consistent sustainability effort and leadership
training, and that leadership training should start in the
classroom and be consistent throughout the school district.
Another component of that leadership is the governance or
the governance bodies. We have--they are frequently elected
boards, school boards who change, and with the change of
elected boards we also have the change in focus sometimes. So
our national organizations and our state organizations that
work with the governance issues need to be part of this process
as we look at making sure that we are sustaining the success
that we experience on the classroom level.
Mrs. Bigger. [presiding] The gentleman yields back. I will
recognize myself for 5 minutes, since I'm next in line.
I would really like to say how happy I am to see Mr. Vallas
here. We really miss you in Illinois in the Chicago schools.
You were always a role model I think when we were doing No
Child Left Behind, and I know Chairman Boehner and Mr. Miller
got really tired of hearing me say, ``Well, this is what Paul
Vallas did in the Chicago schools, and that was very
successful.'' But you did a great job, and we miss you. And I
know that Philadelphia is very lucky to have you. And with
that, I have a couple of questions.
First of all, one of the things that I know that you did in
the Chicago schools, among many of the innovative ideas, but
one when there was a school that was not performing, you didn't
really take the students out of the school but you took the
management, the administration and the teachers. Are you still
involved in that, and is it working if you could--
Mr. Vallas. Yes. I like to think we've refined the art of
reconstitution. And there's different types of reconstitution,
but in Philadelphia some schools have been placed under private
management, as you well know the celebrated private management
cases. A number of schools have been converted to charters, and
a number of schools have had simple upward leadership changes.
So we're still doing that.
Obviously, the level of intervention is really tied to the
degree of underperformance in the schools. Because, you know,
one of the things that we do is we try to go beyond the simple
test score to evaluate and assess schools. We try to use a
value added assessment approach to evaluating how schools are
performing so that say if a school is not in AYP but that
school is showing growth and improvement, the prescription for
intervention may not be as radical as the school that simply is
dead in the water. But we're still reconstituting schools,
changing management, changing leadership in some cases, going
much deeper and changing personnel in the schools, in some
cases phasing out existing schools, and depopulating those
schools as a way of gradual reconstitution. So yes, we're still
doing it in a much more refined manner, though.
Mrs. Biggert. You talk about the partnerships with the
private and other public institutions that you established. Can
you talk a little bit more about how the high school juniors
and seniors are operating under that, and are they able to--I
think you have them enrolling in college preparatory programs.
And has this partnership allowed more of the disadvantaged
students have access to additional options after graduation?
Mr. Vallas. It has. In a single year, we actually increased
the number of students in AP honors advanced placement and what
we call our college programs from less than 1,000 to over
4,000. The old adage being ``if you build it, they will come.''
We were assisted--we're very fortunate in Philadelphia that
there is in the Philadelphia Metropolitan area there are over
80 colleges and universities most of whom are eager to partner
with schools, Drexel, University of Penn, whatever. So what
we've been doing is a number of the universities have actually
taken over management responsibilities over the schools. In the
case of Temple and University of Penn, they're actually
managing the schools. They are their schools. They hire the
principals, they do the staffing, they provide the professional
development, they run the schools.
In other cases, like Drexel, University of the Sciences,
they're management partners. But all of those programs consist
of what we call our college goods program allowing juniors and
senior to enroll in universities for dual credit, those
students who meet the minimum qualifications.
So what we've been able to do is to enrich the curriculum
instructional offerings by these types of relationships. So,
for example, if you're going to the University of the Sciences,
you can take courses at Drexel University. If you're going to
Sayer, which is converting a middle school or phasing out
practically all of our middle schools so that we would be a K-8
9-12 system, but Sayer is partnering with University of the
Sciences, and their juniors and seniors will be able to take
university courses at University of the Sciences for dual
credits.
So these type of relationships have allowed us to
dramatically enrich the curriculum--the course offerings in the
high schools at really very modest expense.
Mrs. Biggert. And then just one more question. You were
very involved, I think, in bringing the parents into the
schools and worked very hard starting with the parent councils
and having the parents have to come and pick up the report card
and things. And then I think that you did also establish
mandatory summer school for those that were not being promoted.
Mr. Vallas. Right.
Mrs. Biggert. And now I think that in your district you
have mandatory summer programs for students in math and
reading.
Mr. Vallas. And reading. Any child grades 1 through 8 who
is not reading or computing at grade level is provided an
additional 6 weeks of instruction about 4 hours a day, two
meals a day, enrichment in the afternoon. So we get more people
signing up than--this year we're actually turning kids away who
don't have to be there but want to enroll.
We do the same thing with extended day. There's mandatory
extended day for about 26 weeks, and it goes October to April.
It provides the kids with at least another hour of additional
instructional support and a second hour of enrichment should
they choose to participate. But we're doing something a little
different this year in summer and extended day. We're actually
not just doing extended day and summer school remedial. And
incidentally, everything that's done in extended day and summer
school is tied to the curriculum instructional models.
So it's simply like an extended school year and extended
school day for underachieving. But what we're doing for the
children who do not have to go to summer school, we're offering
after school extended day honors, advanced placement. We're
offering summer school honors advanced placement accelerated so
we can expand the diversity of our offerings. But it is
mandated for children who are not academically at grade level.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you. My time has expired.
The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Andrews.
Mr. Andrews. Thank you very much, Madame Chairman. I'd like
to thank the panel for outstanding testimony. In particular,
I'd like to thank the superintendents who were here for the
important work they're doing every day with these students.
I'm very encouraged by what I read and hear, and it is to
your credit and those who you work with, your teachers and
staff and obviously parents and students deserve this credit.
Mr. Vallas, I particularly want to say how pleased we are
in the Delaware Valley with your work in Philadelphia. About a
third of my constituents work in Philadelphia, many of them
work for you, and the health--
Mr. Vallas. We take care of them.
Mr. Andrews. That's right. And the health of the
Philadelphia school district is very important to all of us in
the region, and you are a very healthy development--your
arrival.
I want to ask about AYP and evaluation of IDEA students. I
want to say for the record, I believe and I think each of us up
here believes that there should be no artificial limitations on
the achievements of IDEA students. They should be able to go as
high and as far as quickly as they possibly can. I think there
have been such arbitrary limitations in the past, and we ought
to abolish them.
Having said that, I am very concerned about the Department
of Education's interpretation of the AYP rules that seems to be
holding fast to the notion that there can be no variation or no
discretion with any real meaning in the evaluation of IDEA
children as opposed to non-IDEA children.
I'd like to ask the superintendents who were here this
morning how you're approaching this problem. Are you giving
IDEA children the same tests that you are giving the other
children? If so, how's it going? If not, what are you doing?
And do you think that we should consider changes in the way we
evaluate the progress of IDEA children.
I want to say again for the record, because this is such a
volatile issue, to me changes in evaluation would not mean
abandoning evaluation. It would not mean lowering standards. It
would not mean in any way isolating or discrediting these
children. But I've heard from so many of my educators that this
is a problem, I wanted to hear from each of you.
Dr. Smith. If I could, it's a critical issue for us and is
one that will continue to push--beg for an answer as to how to
proceed in this nation with IDEA students and one that we've
been wrestling with in my district a great deal.
I think that--this is my quick answer is that what is
currently in law with No Child Left Behind the requirements for
academic success of IDEA children should stay the way it is.
There shouldn't be any modification of our current posture,
that--and it is creating extraordinary pressure out there in
school districts across the country as to how to make the kind
of gains that are required under No Child Left Behind with
children with special needs.
I am of the--I am very confident that because of that
pressure we're going to find that many of the things we've
historically done to serve the needs of this population have
perhaps even been misguided or misapplied, that in fact in many
cases we've set up a class of young people that we do in fact
expect less of, and as a result, performances are reflective.
Mr. Andrews. Can you tell, though, Dr. Smith, are you
administering the same tests to the IDEA children as the other
children?
Dr. Smith. Yes.
Mr. Andrews. And what's the performance been?
Dr. Smith. The gap in performance is the largest of any of
our subgroups between children with special needs and other
students.
Mr. Andrews. I would say I would invite everyone to
supplement the record with a written answer. I realize I asked
a long question.
Mr. Vallas, how about you in Philadelphia?
Mr. Vallas. Yes, we test. We test. We're required to test.
Obviously, we disaggregate that data.
Let me point out that, again, our own experience as well as
a lot of the research will show that when you have a quality
managed instructional system with all the things that I took
way too long explaining in my earlier answers, you will see
improvement and sometimes significant improvement in special
education children.
I agree with the doctor, I think we need to be very
cautious before we go in and do some significant altering of
that mandate.
As a student who was formerly a special education student,
and not because I wasn't smart but I had a learning deficiency,
but because my stuttering and stammering and my vision
problems, which weren't identified until seventh grade, were
interpreted as basically being characteristics of an
underachiever, I will tell you there are far too many children
being classified as special educational for no other reason
than we just haven't taught them how to read, or they have
perhaps neurological obstacles to learning that can be
corrected through programs like Fast Forward.
A number of years ago in Chicago we decided 1 year to not
only test but to screen every eighth grader who had failed and
were facing retention, and 30 percent of the children failed
their screening, and two-thirds of those children failed their
eye exams. So 4 years later, we have purchased I think close to
30,000 pairs of eyeglasses. So maybe that was the reason their
reading scores went up 6 years. It had nothing to do with the
curriculum, it was the fact that we had a large number of kids
who suddenly could see the blackboard.
I agree with my fellow superintendent here. I think we have
to be very cautious before we go in and we lower that.
Mr. Andrews. I'd quickly ask Dr. Newsome to answer, then my
time is up.
Dr. Newsome. We, too, administer the same standards for our
students with special needs, but I would like to say that I
believe in this area. We entering and exploring some
unchartered territory. We have never before as a nation placed
this level of expectation on all groups, and we need to
understand some of the challenges.
And if I may share one example on our state exam. I went
into a hearing impaired classroom this year, and the students
were preparing for exams. And the teacher had shared that the
previous year's students were asked to respond to eight
questions the asked them to identify the words that sound the
same, an impossible task for these students.
So as we venture into this unchartered territory and we
have set these high stake mandates, we need to be aware of the
challenges that come because these students are placed in these
programs because of special needs.
But again, I do believe, as we have heard Mr. Vallas say,
too many students may be inappropriately placed. There's
certainly a disproportionate number of students who live in
poverty and minority groups involved in special education.
Mr. Andrews. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would just like to
say I appreciate what you've done in this area.
Chairman Boehner. Dr. Casserly wants to remark.
Dr. Casserly. I agree with all of my colleagues who've
spoken on this. I think we're concerned in urban education
about the evaluation procedures for students with disabilities
as well and are trying as best we can to use the same
evaluation tools with these students as we do for all other
students.
The Committee might want to attend to another issue that's
related to this, though, and that's kind of an emerging
practice of using different end sizes for this particular
subgroup and for all other subgroups, that is, the larger the
size the less likely it is students would be evaluated or that
one has to be accountable for that. But there appears to be now
more and more states that are using one end size for disabled
kids and another end size for other students.
Mr. Andrews. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I think to build on
the work that you and Mr. Miller and others have done, the
consensus that I'm increasingly hearing is that we should
maintain this mandate so that we can elevate the level of
educational quality for these children and lead to the kind of
screening that several of the witnesses talked about so we're
not misidentifying children.
We also should look at rigorous but meaningful forms of
evaluation and not a one size fits all as Dr. Newsome just
talked about. I think it's very important that we give children
a fair test. Thank you very much.
Chairman Boehner. If the gentleman would yield--
Mr. Andrews. I would.
Chairman Boehner. You know, we're in the midst of a huge
paradigm shift when it comes to the expectations for children
with special needs, and as we move to expect results for
special needs children, how we assess them and assess their
progress is going to be an issue that we're going to continue
to discuss. I do think the department in their revised
regulations have, in fact, given districts and states more
flexibility over how these special needs children are assessed,
and I think this discussion will go on for some time.
Mr. Andrews. If just briefly again if I may, I stand with
the Chairman and his belief that this paradigm shift is
appropriate and overdue and one that I will defend.
I also appreciate his willingness to talk about the means
by which we achieve the paradigm shift. Thank you.
Chairman Boehner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Georgia, Mr. Gingrey.
Mr. Gingrey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to maybe
direct this question at least initially to Dr. Newsome in
regard to the achievable dream academy.
Dr. Newsome, in your testimony, under the solutions you say
that student effort and family involvement should be a better
predictor of achievement than socioeconomic status.
I might tend to agree with you, but it's certainly true
that children who are like the ones in the academy, 98 percent
are free and reduced lunch, almost by definition they're from
homes where in many instances there's maybe one parent who's
working two jobs or possibly they're of limited English
proficiency and there is a high transient rate. I mean the two
are so closely connected, almost joined at the hip that it's I
think very difficult to achieve that and to say that despite
this lack of socioeconomic wherewithal that you can still
achieve what you've done at the Achievable Dream Academy. And I
mean, it's--I commend you. It's fantastic. It sounds wonderful.
My question is, though, in taking that the group of
students that you recruit to come and start in the ninth
grade--I'm assuming this is a high school.
Dr. Newsome. No.
Mr. Gingrey. K-12?
Dr. Newsome. This is a K through 8 program.
Mr. Gingrey. The ones that you recruit to do that, to go
eight and a half hours a day, 6 days a week, and of course the
carrot is the college scholarship if they complete the program,
and I think that's fantastic. But what percentage of students
that enter the program are actually--stay in the program.
Because if they all--if 98 percent of them are from those type
backgrounds that I would envision, that I do envision of
youngsters on free and reduced lunch, they're economically
disadvantaged. I just wonder if your success rate is pure and
is true as it is if you'd give us the numbers of students that
may drop out of the program.
Dr. Newsome. First of all, in my written testimony I use a
term called social economic determinism, and this was a term
introduced to us through the Phi Delta Kappa international
organization in their audit. And their research found that 70
percent of a student's performance on standardized tests can be
attributed to what happens before they get to school and for
the most part based on family income.
And the testimony further goes on to say that through a
strong curriculum, strong alignment, strong delivery of
instruction, that we can reduce that percentage of influence.
And so in the Achievable Dream Academy, we do have students who
do spend more time in school than they do at home compared to
their counterparts.
At this point I did not bring the statistics with me, but I
can certainly provide them for you. I do know that one of our
seniors that I spoke with this past week has shared with me
that she's one of six siblings and all have gone or are in the
process of going to this school, and we do have a waiting list.
Again, at this point, I do not have the rate of turnover and
will be happy to provide that for you.
Mr. Gingrey. Thank you.
Chairman Boehner. I think Dr. Raymond wants to comment, as
well.
Dr. Raymond. I would just like to amplify the comment that
Dr. Newsome made with some research that does not appear in my
testimony but comes to my head because we're talking about it.
We've actually looked at what the relative contributions to
student learning are from teachers and tried to suggest that
teachers contribute in different ways to, in different
magnitudes to student learning. And what we've been able to
determine is that if you had teachers in all classrooms with
low socioeconomic students who were capable of producing at the
national distribution of teachers at the 75th percentile, in
other words that they would produce student gains at the 75th
percentile of all teachers who produce gains, you could
actually in 3 years' time wipe out any disadvantage of
socioeconomic background.
And that, to us, suggests that the critical factor that we
have to have in protracted sustained school reform efforts is
teachers who do produce outcomes.
Mr. Gingrey. Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up, but just
for one last comment going back to what Dr. Newsome said. He
was quoting the author Jim Collins and I really, really agree
with this. If we expect and indeed demand that schools be
great, then we need to look at churches, communities,
government, business, families, and they need to be great as
well. I think that was a great point, and I really appreciate
you bringing that to us.
Chairman Boehner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
New York, Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all
of the panelists for your testimony this morning.
I want to pick up on something that Dr. Casserly said and
ask the three superintendents. Dr. Casserly said that we have
made improvements, that we have a long way to go, but that
improvement on a large scale is possible.
And my question to the three superintendents is do you have
what you need to make the next leap? Do you have the
instructional resources? Are you able to offer class size
that's appropriate? Do you have a sufficient number of well
qualified teachers?
I'm assuming you agree with the comment that Dr. Casserly
made, so my question is can you get to the next level?
Dr. Smith. I'd be happy to respond. Yes, we can get to the
next level. I think there are issues that are going to over
time prove challenging to us. One, again, I come back to the
point I made before is the question of appropriate resource.
How do we--when we get--when we continue to move numbers up, be
it special needs children or other categories, accuracy and the
kind of intervention that we bring to the classroom, how do we
move to the next level and really perform at a high degree with
all kids.
The appropriate tool, the effective tool is a major
challenge for us, and you'll see it across the country. You'll
see school districts or schools that choose an ineffective
reading strategy and they flounder and fail, and you'll see
others that choose successfully. It's not just a matter of one
vendor or another, some things in fact work and some things
just don't. The efficacy of strategy is huge.
The second piece is the quality of the workforce. As we
continue to expect more and really a different kind of teacher
than we've had in the past, a teacher that is strategic in how
they think, that can manage and manipulate data, that can think
fluidly about how to transform their teaching strategies over
the course of a week to make sure that children don't fall by
the wayside, and conversely so that we continue to challenge
those at the high end, calls for a different kind of a talent
than maybe we have seen in the past.
So the need to do some retooling of our Universities and
our teacher preparation programs and to continue to try to
drive for a higher skill level with our workforce is going to
continue to be a major challenge and simply to deal with the
turnover that we're having, the retirements, those that are
leaving the profession, is huge and in my view one of the other
major challenges we have.
Mr. Vallas. Well, I certainly agree with everything that's
been said. Let me add a couple of things, though.
I think we really have to begin focusing--put a focus on
making a big commitment to early childhood education. When you
look at school districts, at least from my experience now in
two districts, when you look at school districts that are
improving, where the instruction clearly is improving, you see
a couple of common characteristics. One is both reading and
math are improving, but math seems to be improving much faster
because there are fewer language barriers so to speak and
sometimes cultural barriers to the learning and mastery of
math.
But you see a second characteristic, and that is at every
grade level the children seem to be doing better. At every
grade level the gap seems to be narrowing. Certainly my
experience in Chicago, where the eighth grade test scores I
think are now the highest than they've ever been, yet,
significantly higher than the third grade test scores. At every
grade level the test scores seem to be improving.
But the problem is the gap is so wide by the time the kids
hit third grade that you never quite get caught up driving home
the point that you have got to--we've got to begin to invest
considerably more resources in early childhood education. We've
got to start reaching the children and the parents of the
children before the children are born.
We adopted a--we established a program called ``Cradle to
the Classroom'' in the city of Chicago. We've extended to here.
It was actually founded by a former welfare mother who is now
affiliated with Georgetown University, Virginia York. In fact,
Congressman Davis knows her well, from his district.
What they did was they set up a program where they identify
every pregnant teen in the high schools, provide the pregnant
teen with a parent trainer who would work with the pregnant
teen and make sure the baby is born healthy, put the baby in
daycare and preschool. Keep the pregnant teen in high school.
I think over a period of 4 years they had graduation rates
of like 90 percent. At least through my first 6 years there, I
think only two or three of the pregnant teens who had gone
through the programs, and there were I think close to 3,000 had
gotten pregnant a second time, one of the pregnant teens, it's
my understanding, was admitted to Harvard last year.
The bottom line is--and the performance of the children in
those programs who had been in the Cradle to the Classroom
program, they are now entering kindergarten, first grade,
second grade, it's my understanding has been much greater, a
significant difference, the gap significantly narrower.
So, you know, I think we've got to begin to focus on early
childhood education. As I pointed out earlier, when you look at
this phenomena of disruptive student behavior that is beginning
to--the problem of disruptive behavior among young children,
first graders, second graders, third graders, engaged in the
type of violent acts or the type of disruptive behavior that
wouldn't have been imagined five, six, seven, 10 years ago.
That's not a problem that the school created. That's not a
problem that was result of deficiencies at the school. The
children are starting school not ready for school. So clearly I
think we have got to focus our attention, because I think the
things that we've talked about, a managed instructional system,
with all that that entails will drive us to the next level, but
we've got to close that gap before the children ever start
school because in some cases the gap is too wide to be closed.
Dr. Newsome. Thank you for the question, and I will be very
brief. Teacher quality, early intervention, resources have all
been addressed. One of the challenges in urban school districts
is as we reduce class size and as we provide more opportunity
for early intervention with all day kindergarten and preschool,
we don't have space. Many of these grants provide the resources
and pay for funding for teachers and resources, but we cannot
use funding to provide space for them.
A significant number of our students are attending school
in portable trailers because there is no space in the main
building. And so I think we may need to look at the flexibility
in the expenditures for some of these grants.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Boehner. I think Dr. Casserly wants to remark on
it a little.
Dr. Casserly. Just let me add two additional things that we
are still struggling with and need additional help with, and I
agree with all the other panelists here, is that we continue to
need help with the reform of high schools in the cities. We're
getting terrific gains at the elementary grades and kind of
modest gains, spotty gains at the middle grades, but our high
schools still need considerable reform.
In addition to that, there still needs to be considerable
work done devoted to the instruction of English language
learners. We've got a long way to go on that front, and we're
not making the kind of progress with that population of
students that we really need to.
Chairman Boehner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Nebraska, Mr. Osborne.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
being here. I'm sorry I missed your earlier testimony. We had
some other hearings scheduled at the same time.
What I'd like to ask about is something I guess that had to
do with myself. I used to be in a lot of city schools, inner
city schools and living rooms, 30 or 40 a year, in large
cities, and I noticed that parental involvement was a big
factor with a lot of transcripts. And it wasn't a one-to-one
correlation but it was a pretty heavy correlation. And I know a
lot of the things that you're suggesting here, the summer
school, longer school days, better teachers, but those all cost
money. Then you're going to have some people say yeah, we'd
like to do that but we don't have the money to do it.
Do you have any strategies for involving parents at a
higher level without necessarily doing some of these things
which are very expensive? I know that's a difficult question,
but I thought I'd just throw that out to you.
Mr. Vallas. Let me start out by saying that there are a
number of things you can do, and what we've tried to do is tap
into Medicaid money, TANF money, transitional assistance to
secure additional funds to finance these initiatives. I'm
speaking as a superintendent of a school district where about
85 percent of the children live in homes that are at or below
the poverty rate. So clearly a very significant amount of
children are coming from challenging environments.
Our approach has been to do the following, to make sure
that all of our schools, first of all, have locally elected
parent councils so that you're developing a cadre of parent
leaders in that school.
Our second approach has been to--I inherited a school
district that had to lay off its truant officers, that had
gotten rid of a lot of the critical support staff. When we go
out and we hire our truant officers or when we hire our
community patrols, when we recruit our in-school patrols,
they're our parents. So again, building a cadre of parents.
Every school has a parent help desk. Every school has a parent
patrol. Every school, hopefully by September of next year,
we'll have a parent council.
Come September, there will be close to 2,000 parents who
are working in the schools in a variety of support capacities.
Now let me point out that many of the parents who are working
in the schools are what we call transitional assistance
parents. These are parents who are meeting their TANF
obligations, their welfare to work obligations by participating
in the schools. So the objective here is to build a cadre of
parents who can help the school be more accessible to the
parents and the community but can also help the school reach
out to that disengaged, uncommitted parent.
I mentioned all of our truant officers are parents. Our
home instructional program for preschool youths, which is our
home preschooling for children who are not in preschool, is run
and administered by parents, parents visiting the home of other
parents. So the objective here is to build a cadre of parents
in each of the schools who can be exemplary role models.
A lot of those programs are funded through basically
nontraditional sources like Medicaid, the transitional
assistance, the TANIF money, many of the social service money.
Another thing that we're doing to get parents more
involved--and let me point out that all the parents who go
through these programs are also provided continuing education.
So we're upgrading their skills as they move along, upgrading
their capabilities.
But we're also partnering with community based
organizations, particularly faith-based institutions in very
aggressive ways, so that not only do you have a cadre of
parents working in those schools to reach out to the less
engaged and the disengaged parents and sometimes to provide a
buffer between the schools and those parents who the child can
do no wrong, and if my child is disciplined or suspended it's
the schools fault, whatever, because some schools need the
parents to serve as a buffer.
But working through the faith-based institutions in a very
aggressive way, the faith-based institutions have become
vehicles for mobilizing even greater parental involvement and
greater community involvement in support of the schools.
So those are two very cost-effective ways of engaging our
parents.
One final thing that I want to mention is we are--every
aspect of our curriculum instructional programs and our
disciplinary program has a parent training component, so the
curriculum instructional models all have parent components,
parent homework guides. The report card has a parent checklist.
Some parents--some people have referred to it as a parent
report card. I refer to it as a parent checklist.
When your children are disciplined, parental counseling is
required, so the parents have to come particularly in the
primary grades. And if a child is persistently disruptive,
additional parental involvement is mandated, you see.
So again, those things are not that expensive to do. So
those are just some examples of our attempts to
institutionalize parental involvement.
Dr. Smith. If I could just add one comment. One of the
things that--the basic premise we operate with is that parents
of all backgrounds, regardless of affluence, race or other
factors, tend to be involved when they see their children
coming to school and being successful, and it's the parent that
tends to see the child not engaged, not successful in school
that kind of separates themselves from the school environment.
We also--in my work in Charlotte, North Carolina as
superintendent, I spent a lot of time working with pre-
kindergarten and studying how we bring families into the K-12
program, families that perhaps have had as children themselves
had bad experiences with schooling.
We found a couple of factors. One, with pre-kindergarten--
and I'd say the same holds true with Head Start--is that, one,
the nature of the early intervention programs, be it Head Start
or be it pre-kindergarten programs operated within a school
district is that they absolutely have to have as their core a
pre-literacy focus. They have to be preparing students to enter
kindergarten as confident readers. And the gap really needs to
be worked to be eliminated by the time they enter kindergarten.
And with that, with families seeing their 4-year-olds and
3-year-olds being successful as early readers, there needs to
be some very directed conversation with parents about
parenting, and we were able to do this successfully with parent
contracts, with mandated regular parent meetings as a group,
not in a punitive way but in a positive way, coming together to
celebrate the work of their children, to share in the work of
their children, to talk about ways that they can read with
their children at home, and providing supplies and materials.
But important we found was to start that process as a
successful process as a family as children come into the K-12
or first grade through 12th grade operation and plant that seed
that each parent's children are successful in our schools. They
tend to buy in and learn to be a part of it more down the road.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe my time has
expired. Thank you.
Mr. Castle. [presiding] Thank you, Mr. Osborne. Mr. Tierney
is recognized for as long as he wants, as long as it does not
exceed 5 minutes.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, my friend. Thank you all for your
testimony here this morning. It has been very helpful. Let me
see if I can go through a couple of questions in my allotted
time.
First of all, the transfer aspects of No Child Left Behind
where--would you comment on that for me in terms of whether you
think that's a good policy or bad policy as it's practically
able to be applied with your systems.
Dr. Smith. I can speak to that. I think the transfer policy
is a good policy, and we're managing it. I think that we have
an obligation to educate children, and when we're having
difficulty with that task, we have an obligation to give
parents some choices. So again, we have found ways to make it
work and support it.
Mr. Tierney. Maybe I should have some people in my district
contact you for those ways. We're running up against a problem
of finding out too late, you know, whether or not people are
going to have to have that money--setting aside money for
periods of time then finding out only too late the parents
don't opt for the transfer and then not be able to allocate for
those funds, and also difficulty with finding a place for them
to transfer to. Our schools are full. But you're apparently not
running into any of that or you've found some solution for it.
Dr. Smith. I'd just follow up. I'm not saying we don't have
technical challenges with this, but it's challenges that we're
willing to work through.
Certainly the date of notification when a school needs to
provide this opportunity is a problem. We're working through
that right now this year as we speak. And so those issues,
finding a seat available and what that does for capacity of
other schools is a challenge for us. But again, in terms of the
concept and learning to adapt to the requirements, I think,
again, we're finding ways to do that and have not been stopped
at this point in doing so.
Certainly with some districts, the challenge becomes almost
absurd, distance, capacity issues, availability of adequately
performing schools becomes challenging. And again, I think that
certainly needs to be noted, and we just need to find a
rational way to work through some of those details in the law.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you. Doctor, you wanted to say--
Dr. Newsome. I would agree that the notification date is a
tremendous challenge for us. The national rate of public school
choice transfers are approximately 2 percent. And if the rate
remains at 2 percent, I think we'd be able to adequately
accommodate this. But as more parents become aware and more
schools are identified as eligible or required to provide
choice, then I see that this potentially will be a greater
challenge for us.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
Mr. Vallas. We haven't had any serious problems for us.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
Mr. Vallas. We haven't had any serious problems even with
the timing of the letter being sent out. We've--again, larger
districts have fewer problems because they tend to have more
options where smaller districts are sometimes at a
disadvantage.
Transportation reimbursement is a headache and it does take
away from other critical funds, but the bottom line is we
haven't had any serious problems.
To deal with the issues of choices, we're creating more
choices. We have 51 charters in Philadelphia, incidentally,
subject to the same No Child Left Behind standards that the
public schools are subjected to. So everyone is on the same
accountability mandate.
What we're also doing is we're magnetizing neighborhood
schools by putting magnet programs in neighborhood that then
are open enrollment programs, like the international
baccalaureate programs or advanced math, science and technology
academy programs so on and so forth. So we haven't had problems
expanding the number of options too.
But one thing has happened. We mail out over 100,000
letters a year, yet, maybe 3,000, 4,000 elect to even
contemplate taking advantage. Once the schools have after
school extended day programs, once the schools are seemingly
moving in the right direction, even if those schools are not
AYP, even if those schools are schools that are designated as
schools in corrective action mandating, those letters you'll
find very few parents electing to take advantage of those
choice options.
Parents are very patient as long as they feel the school's
moving in the right direction.
Mr. Tierney. I think--
Dr. Casserly. We did a major study of the choice options in
the major cities across the country earlier this school year,
and we did find that this school year there were about three
times as many parents who availed themselves of various public
school choices this school year compared to last school year.
But the overall demand has been indicated still remains
relatively low. And because the demand is relatively low, we're
not having as many problems as we may have in the future with
capacity if that demand continues or would continue to arise.
This issue about late data from the state is a serious one.
Many of our school districts are simply not getting the data
back from the states on which school have been identified for
adequate yearly progress and, thereby, we can't notify the
parents in a timely fashion to give them an adequate
opportunity to make an intelligent decision about whether or
not they want to transfer their kid.
Mr. Tierney. Looks like I can sneak in one last question.
It would be about the small schools concept with high schools.
I know Mr. Vallas, you mentioned that you're going from K to 8
and 9 to 12 again, as I think a number of schools are.
What has been your experiences with making the--using the
small schools program in high schools, and has that been a
favorable experience, and should we keep moving in that
direction?
Mr. Vallas. Small schools are preferable to large schools,
but if you don't have a managed instructional system, then, you
know, a small school can be as big a failure as some of our
failing large high schools.
But generally when you downsize the size of the schools--
we're building a number of new high schools. None of them
will--and the middle schools that we're converting to high
schools, none will have more than 800 students.
So we try to keep the schools at a manageable size so that
they're small enough to be more intimate, greater familiarity,
faculty can have a staff meeting in a classroom instead of the
auditorium, things of this nature. Much more intimate. So you
can recognize students when they're walking down the halls.
But we also want to keep the school sizable enough so it
can provide a diversity of offerings, the neighborhood- based
magnet programs, offer the course offerings that are needed.
But we found that when schools are smaller, they are much
more manageable and it creates--again, it's another factor
combined with other things can improve the level of--can make
the environment more conducive to learning.
I do have to make one comment, though, related to the No
Child Left Behind mandate that students be allowed to select
other schools, school options. One of the things we do not do
in Philadelphia is I will not make a school overcrowded if--to
meet the mandate. And I will not increase class size to meet
the mandate.
Two of our goals is to keep our schools at a manageable
size in terms of the overall enrollment and to reduce class
size. And a lot of times there's pressure to put 37 kids in a
classroom because this is a AYP school and you need to find a
place for the children. Well, you know, you put 37 kids in that
classroom, and that's not going to be an AYP school for long.
So we have clear guidelines. We are not going to undermine
the quality of the schools that have achieved AYP because
they've been reducing class size, because they're of a more
manageable size in addition to all the instructional reforms
that they've instituted in order to comply with the mandates.
So within those parameters we're very comfortable with the
mandate. Of course, that could change if next year 25 percent
of the kids decide to participate. Then I may be singing a
different tune.
Mr. Castle. Thank you, Mr. Tierney. Mr. Ehlers is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two questions
to ask of each of you, and particularly the superintendents.
The first one is, under No Child Left Behind in 2007, 2008 we
begin testing for science, and the schools and the states are
supposed to be preparing standards.
So the first question is is your state and your school
beginning that process, and are you encountering any problems
with it?
The second question is related to the Chairman's comment
earlier about a paradigm shift that we're undergoing, and he
referred to education of special students. But I think there's
been a paradigm shift in the legislation period. And I'd be
interested in how that has affected the Great City Schools. In
other words, are you better off now than you were under the
previous legislation or not?
Do you see us solving the many problems that arise whenever
you introduce new legislation? Or are you seeing problems that
really need attention?
So first question, science. Second, are you better off or
worse off as a result of the paradigm shift.
Dr. Smith. I'll talk about science. We are in Maryland and
our district beginning the work on the science initiative.
We're in the very early stages, however, and I really couldn't
give you much detail as to how this is going to play out.
I will share that as we've focused on the issues of reading
and mathematics in grades K-8, time is becoming the key factor,
and we're finding that we have a very, very busy school
schedule when you run a traditional 6 hour 15 minute--six hour
30 minute school day over 180 day school year, which is pretty
much standard across the country. What we have done is we have
shifted the resource of time to reading and math. So if you
come to our district today, you will find 90 minutes of reading
and 90 minutes of math being taught in our middle schools and
in our elementary schools.
I think some of the big challenges that we have not
addressed yet is how do we find now more time for science as
well, and what does that do for the rest of the curriculum.
So again, there are some important decisions that certainly
will surface in my view as we move into that new phase. What
about the arts? What about issues of physical education and
technical training and so forth that are critically important
for our young people? And is there enough time to accomplish
all these tasks and do them at the level of proficiency that we
expect I think are some of the unanswered questions right now.
Dr. Casserly. On the paradigm shift, let me give you a
short answer. I think we're better off with a paradigm shift
than we were before. I think there still is lots of technical
problems that we need to resolve in ``No Child Left Behind,''
but in general the larger emphasis on student achievement, on
closing the achievement gap, and being accountable for the
results is a shift that has been important to us. And we can
see the result of that shift not only in our increasing
emphasis on student achievement and now some of the results we
see emerging because of that, but in the attitude change in
many urban school leaders across the country and their focus
now on student performance. It's really something that we have
not seen in quite the same way.
This paradigm shift obviously is embodied in No Child Left
Behind, but it is a shift attitudinally that has been going on
for some time, but it's an important one. And I think we're
better off because of it.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you.
Mr. Vallas. We're excited about the science mandate. I
think science has long been overlooked. And you look at the gap
that exists, it's not an achievement--it's an achievement cap
at all levels, high achievement, honors, advanced placement,
science, mathematics.
Also you'll find when school districts begin to focus
seriously on math and science, sometimes those scores improve
much faster than the reading scores because again, there are
fewer barriers to mastering those areas.
Next year, our school district--it's my second year in
Philadelphia, and we've standardized the math and reading
curriculum, the managed instructional system. Next year we're
adding science and social studies. We will literally spend--we
spend 120 minutes a day on reading and 90 minutes on math, not
to count extended day. Next year we'll be spending 45 minutes a
day on science. And again, it follows the curriculum
instructional models that we're using in reading and math. And
we supplement it with science clubs, programs like the--high
achievement programs like the Odyssey programs, extended day
science, summer science. Science is offered as a summer school
enrichment course.
So again, we're happy that science is being included, and
we certainly welcome the mandate.
In so far as the paradigm shift, I agree with Mike. The
paradigm shift for us began in the mid 1990's because many
things we were doing in Chicago that were very controversial at
the time have now become embodied, incorporated into No Child
Left Behind. So I think the paradigm shift began for us and for
many large urban school districts, as Michael has pointed out,
really in the 1990's, and I think we've--so we welcome this.
And certainly I think No Child Left Behind, with its strong
focus on accountability, has I think accelerated that shift
more dramatically, but many of us were involved in this early
on when some of the things like standardized curriculum were
equated with lobotomizing teachers. So I think we've gone
beyond--the paradigm shift really began for us much earlier.
Chairman Boehner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Illinois, Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
thank you for a very informative and insightful hearing. And I
also want to thank all the witnesses for their comments.
Paul, it's good to see you again, as always. I still say
that Philadelphia's gain was Chicago's loss. And from
everything that I hear, you're doing an outstanding job there.
Dr. Newsome, let me begin with you. Ever since reading
something in an education digest about 35 years ago called the
Banneker Report that talked about the work of a Dr. Sheppard in
the Banneker School district in St. Louis, Missouri, which was
the poorest district in the area, reading scores were low,
things were in disarray, and he sort of became the pied piper
of education for that community and formed a partnership
between the school and the community.
I've been convinced that in low income, low-performing
communities, the most effective way to raise the standards and
raise education achievement is to have a serious partnership.
So I'm intrigued by the Achievable Dream Academies. Could you
talk a little bit about how those were put together and how the
concept emerged?
Dr. Newsome. I think it takes individuals and ordinary
people who want to do extraordinary things. And this began long
before I became superintendent in Newport News. As a matter of
fact, I think some of the credit needs to go to Dr. Smith here,
who was probably in Newport News when this was started. And our
good Congressman Bobby Scott was very much involved as well.
But there was a gentleman named Walter Siegeloff who was a
businessman who became frustrated when he had applicants who
could not fill out an application and young people who could
not interview. And this one businessman joined with other
businessmen and worked with the school system.
And I think what's unique about Newport News is it took a
brave superintendent to say I'm going to give up some of my
authority and some of my autonomy and share it with the
community.
Too many school systems aren't willing to do that and,
thus, I think they lose out on opportunity for business and
community partnerships.
One last thing. There is an educational foundation in
Newport News that consist of business leaders throughout the
community, and they have made education as their No. 1 issue.
And so this shared partnership and this desire to give up some
of the autonomy, to link up with those people who would support
education I think was the foundation to the beginning of the
Achievable Dream Academy.
Mr. Davis. And I couldn't agree with you more. I mean I
believe that if a community determines that education is the
highest priority for that community, I don't care how low the
income or what kind of community it is, where it's situated,
that they'll find a way in concert with the educators for
children to achieve.
Paul, I've been spending a lot of time looking at this
whole notion of problems that African-American males are
experiencing with education achievement, more so than many
other components of the population.
It is my belief that one of the problems is that there are
so few males in early childhood education that they come into
contact with, that many of them grow up with the idea that
education really is not for them, that it's a female thing,
that it's a girl and a woman thing.
Do you--would you believe that maybe some heavy emphasis on
finding ways to recruit trained minorities to become early
childhood educators might have some impact on this problem?
Mr. Vallas. You know, getting men into schools in general
is--we have elementary schools where you don't have a single
man or the only man in the school might be the custodian. And
so just getting men into elementary education would make a big
difference, particularly in early childhood education.
Our approach has been to aggressively recruit in the
worthy--where the male educators are, particularly African-
American male educators. And so we have a very strong working
relationship with the historic black colleges. Or course
Congressman Reverend Dr. Gray is obviously a prominent citizen
of Philadelphia, so he certainly assists us in that endeavor.
So we've been moving aggressively to do that.
We've also been aggressively doing alternative
certification through programs like Teach America, which has
had phenomenal success. This has also enabled us to target--to
go out and recruit males, African-Americans from other
professions who then--who have the content area mastery, but
they obviously need the instructional experience. So that's
enabled us to increase the number of males, in particularly
African-American males in the schools. But, you know, having
those male role models and those male mentors in the schools,
either in an instructional capacity or at least in a support
capacity is critical.
That's why the partnerships with the faith-based
institutions are so important. And these are not traditional
partnerships. We encourage our faith-based institutions to set
up gospel choirs, after school programs, bible clubs, as long
as it's voluntary and there's no expenditure of our funds. We
also have in the state of Pennsylvania a law called Faith-Based
Release Time that allows children to participate in faith-based
services 36 hours during the regular school year, during the
regular school day. And we actively encourage them to
participate in those areas.
And then, of course, when the faith-based institutions have
that opportunity, they come in and they set up the passage
programs, the mentoring clubs, their peer mentoring clubs, and
these things establish a much larger male presence in the
schools, and it has much greater benefit particularly to the
young African-American males, who, again, need to have the role
models in the schools, value in education.
I do want to mention one more point very quickly. I'm a
time eater here and I apologize, Congressman. Mayor Street and
Chaka Fattah have embarked upon a program called Last Dollar.
And under this Last Dollar program, we provide every high
school senior a scholarship designed to make up the difference
between what they can get in financial aid and what they need
to attend college.
For a lot of parents--for a lot of children who come from
families whose parents who have never gone to college and view
college as financially beyond their means, the signal that
we're sending to that incoming freshman is at the end of the
day at the end of 4 years, you will be able to financially
afford college and university. All you have to do is stick
around to get the prize so to speak. And we think that that's
going to have a profound impact too.
So we think, again, that that image that somehow college--
it's not only no one in my family has ever gone to college, but
there's also this perception that college may be beyond their
financial means. So programs like Gear Up, which is Chaka
Fattah--Congressman Fattah's program, and programs like Last
Dollar are designed to basically eliminate that psychological
obstacle that somehow schools are never going to be--college is
never going to be financially affordable.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I know my
time has gone, but if the other panelists could just respond
quickly to the male involvement question, I'd appreciate it.
Dr. Smith. I agree with your point. I think one of the
critical issues is in trying to develop strategies within a
district. Being keenly aware of some of the social and
developmental factors that children go through, that young
people go through, and being keenly aware of the fact that it's
not just, as we all have advocated, a strong managed
instructional program, but it's the other half of it. It's what
the child brings to the classroom, and it's the social context
that they bring to the classroom.
One of the strategies that I have found to be very, very
successful in Newport News, in Charlotte, and again now in Anne
Arundel County is a program called AVID, Advancement via
Individual Determination, where we actually work to cluster
young people and kids that are ``traditionally average'' that
all of a sudden start doing some pretty extraordinary things;
where you have a group of males that are academically oriented
and they rely on one another and develop a social fabric around
academic settings and it's OK. It's OK to pick up the phone and
call each other and ask each other about your math assignment.
But those kinds of relationships and that kind of a social
structure don't normally come into existence in our middle
schools and our high schools. Quite often it's the social
fabric that says to do the exact opposite.
And so again, we do have to design and actually
strategically design strategies to counter that and to build
another kind of an expectation whether it be through adult role
models or peer role models.
Dr. Raymond. I was just going to add that we are just
starting to look at the performance in a few schools that are
single sex public schools, and it seems that the gains that
we're seeing in the male public schools are actually
outstripping the gains in the female public schools. So I think
that there is something to the point that you were raising that
there's a sociology that we could think about creating in
schools that would be attractive to engaging males early on and
keeping them engaged through their education.
Dr. Casserly. A number of our cities are having pretty good
luck with a series of mentoring programs like in conjunction
with 100 Black Men and other organizations in the community
that provide mentoring and personal support services. And I
think those are often proving to be enormously helpful with
many of our kids.
Chairman Boehner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Delaware, the Chairman of the Education Reform Subcommittee,
Mr. Castle.
Mr. Castle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a great panel.
Let me ask my question, then I'm going to do a little talking,
and then you can answer the question while I give you a minute
or two to think about it.
My question is going to be how would you change No Child
Left Behind? This could be a general answer. You don't have to
cite statute numbers or anything like that. But I mean if we
were to make changes in it, and I would assume that come
January of next year when the elections are over with, there
are probably going to be some changes. I'd be interested in any
thoughts you have, but you can expand beyond that. If there's
other Federal education policy if you aren't sure where it all
falls, I wouldn't mind hearing that, either. Think about that
for a moment.
Just a couple of comments.
Chairman Boehner. I think the gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Castle. Thank you very much.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Castle. On the early intervention that Dr. Smith talked
about, that pre-literacy component is absolutely essential, and
sometimes I think we have trouble selling that even here.
Frankly, we do have trouble selling it to the groups who come
before us in the Federal involvement in these early
intervention programs.
I'd also just like to say generally that I just think in
the community, all the way from the home, the church, the
organizations, whatever, we just need more education. And
culture is the same thing. I mean I never see anything on
television that seems to sell the value of education, even the
economic value on it, and then the coverage of education in
general from a press point of view.
If you take a poll, it's usually second-highest to the
economy other than perhaps Iraq right now. And yet, you look
around this room and you have the ubiquitous C-Span cameras but
you don't have other cameras here. They're probably covering a
rock star someplace talking about something else like the
environment or something like that.
The print media I think is good about this, but it's not a
subject that sells easily. And somehow or another I don't think
the value of education comes home to roost at home, and that
just bothers the heck out of me too. How to get around it, I
don't know. I'll leave that for a later day.
So my only question, do any of you who want to take a stab
at it, is there anything at the Federal level that we as a
legislature should be considering dealing with legislation?
I'll give you an example. I don't like the fact they call--
if you don't make out on yearly progress, they call it failed
schools. To me, somehow the classification system ought to be
somehow structured differently so they can't--the media can't
assume that any school that doesn't quite make it is a failed
school.
Chairman Boehner. Now, the gentleman knows that, if he'll
yield, that since 1994 the ESEA refers to schools in need of
improvement, and that same language was incorporated in No
Child Left Behind. Now how people decide to refer to it is
obviously far beyond our control, but we don't--there's no
terminology in No Child Left Behind or the rest of the ESEA
that refers to failed schools.
Mr. Castle. Absolutely. I mean I couldn't agree more. The
Chairman is absolutely correct about that. I mean, you read it
and it just isn't there. Yet, they call them failed schools.
Somehow we have to do it in such a way that they can't do that.
I guess we can't legislate it out of existence, but it's
something that I would like to address.
But in any event, I'd like to hear your thoughts about No
Child Left Behind or Federal education policies from a
legislative point of view that we might consider, if any of you
want to take a stab at it.
Dr. Casserly. We haven't developed any detailed list of
changes that we want to see made in No Child Left Behind. We
assume that many of those specific recommendations will start
to be discussed by Congress in earnest next year.
I think there is going to probably need to be additional
conversations on how it is the AYP system is calibrated. We may
want to take a look in a little more intensive way on various
growth models in measuring student achievement to see whether
or not that isn't a good way to assess progress rather than
being quite so fixed on getting over these bars.
I suspect that we're probably going to have to recalibrate
a little bit the choice and supplemental service provisions,
maybe even resequence how they are done rather than--there's
been a lot of discussion about maybe choice ought to come
behind supplemental services. I think that's a legitimate
conversation to have. We're probably going to have to revisit
this issue about capacity and revisit the issue about end sizes
as well.
I think broadly the thing that we're probably going to have
to drill down on a lot besides these various technical
mechanics of the legislation is in part what we've been trying
to deal with in this panel, and that is how it is we use the
law as a mechanism for driving student performance forward and
ensuring that the law simply doesn't become a mechanism for an
exercise in compliance, but it is in fact a driver of student
performance. And I think that whole broad conversation is going
to have to be back on the table when Congress decides to
discuss it.
Dr. Raymond. I'd like to jump in and focus on a place where
I see the incentives of the legislation being slightly out of
alignment, and that's in the area of highly qualified teachers.
When I think about what drives student performance, it's a
teacher who can create learning gains in their students. And
yet, when we look at the regulations around what we use to
define highly qualified teachers, I don't see anything that
relates to the effects that a teacher can create in learning in
their students, and I'd like to see that alignment tightened
up. I think that would go a long way to pushing the incentives
down into the classroom in ways that I think will accelerate
performance.
Mr. Vallas. I would just comment, I provided a--in my
remarks I provided an attachment that talks in detail about
supplemental education services. And rather than spend a lot of
time on that, I think that's an area where we need to take a
close look at because the--the theory behind the supplemental
education services is if children cannot exercise choice, they
need to be provided with supplemental education services at the
school that they're at. And they're entitled to those services,
and those services are supposed to be provided by private
providers.
The problem is, and I'm not so sure--I don't know if this
is as much a national issue or a state issue. Maybe it's the
subject of state interpretation. But the act, the way it's
structured, actually reduces competition rather than increases
it, and it puts you in a position where providers can come in
and say look, this parent's entitled to 30 hours of
supplemental education service instructional support, and I'm
going to charge them $1800. So there's no price competition.
It's almost as if the price and the hours are fixed.
What we did as a solution, and to the Department of
Education's credit, they were supportive or at least they did
not oppose it. Our state approved it. Reorganize the school
district into a supplemental education service unit, and then
we contracted out with private providers to provide services.
So we were able to provide 160 hours of after school
instructional support for $300 per pupil.
But if you look at the memo as I laid out, that's an issue
that needs to be tweaked a bit. And I don't know if it's as
much a national problem in terms of the rules and regulations
involving the No Child Left Behind Act or whether or not it's
more a subject of state interpretation. It's still a little
unclear.
Also, many of these issues we've talked about, for example,
the--what constitutes a fully service teacher or a highly
qualified teacher? A lot of that's dependent on the rules and
regulations that the state adopts. I don't know if giving the
states more latitude or less latitude is good or bad, but
clearly our battle is to improve the act. And again, I'm a big
supporter of the act. The accountability provisions in the act
are long overdue. But to continuing to improve the act may be
as much a statewide effort as it is a national effort to
actually change the Federal act itself.
Chairman Boehner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Michigan, Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Michael, you expressed that No Child Left Behind's grand
vision is being undercut by statistical manipulations that
exempt a great many children as long as they are not
concentrated in large numbers in the same district, school or
classroom.
How extensive is this? And how can we in Congress address
this problem?
Dr. Casserly. Well, as you know, Mr. Kildee, this end size
issue--the end size referring to the size of the subgroup in
order to count its various test scores for your AYP
calculations. I think that an emerging practice amongst some
states of enlarging that end size or making the end size one
size for one group and one size for another group undermines
the act and essentially sends the signal that a great many
children can be left behind as long as they're not concentrated
in large numbers in the same districts, the same schools, the
same classrooms and the like.
I think the Department of Education has just started to
review various applications for modifications to end sizes. I
think there are seven states that have asked for that change in
their end sizes. But these end sizes now are different in I
believe seven states for disabled children than they are for
other students and for English language learners in a number of
states. And the end sizes can range as large as 100 to 200 in a
couple of states.
And I think it's probably worth the Committee taking a look
at this, because what it suggests over the long run is that you
get these end sizes up to a certain level, you're likely to
start exempting large swaths of school districts, particularly
smaller school districts that don't have an end size large
enough to be calculated under these end size provisions, and
then letting large numbers of schools and school districts kind
of off the accountability hook when--and a lot of kids left
behind if Congress doesn't attend to this a little bit more
vigilantly.
Mr. Kildee. That's somewhat gaming the system, isn't it,
when you--
Dr. Casserly. Well, I think it is--you know, I don't want
to characterize the motives of any individual state, but it
certainly has the effect, when this is done, of letting large
numbers or could have the effect of having large numbers of
schools and school districts out of AYP accountability and
leaving many of those subgroups in those school districts
without any measurement or accountability to the state or to
the Federal Government at all.
Mr. Kildee. We can--disaggregating of data, then, would it
not--actually, we started in No Child Left Behind but it
started back in '92, wasn't it?
Dr. Casserly. Well, I think this question about end size
does undercut the whole notion disaggregating data because
you're essentially saying once the data are disaggregated, it
doesn't necessarily count unless the end size or the subgroup
size of that disaggregated group is large enough to form a
critical mass in somebody's mind in order to justify their
inclusion in the accountability system.
So in some ways it undermines I think the broader intent of
the act, and it undermines the Congress' intent, rightful
intent to insist that the data be disaggregated and then insist
on people being accountable for the performance of those
groups.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you. Dr. Newsome, you mentioned the need
for better school buildings. Probably about 25 years ago I
introduced a bill for Federal participation in school
construction. The Federal Government has actually spent more
money helping state and local governments build prisons than it
has school buildings by far in my 28 years here in Congress.
How do inadequate school buildings make it more difficult
to carry out your responsibilities under No Child Left Behind?
Dr. Newsome. Thank you for the question. In some cases
schools systems may actually have to return dollars that have
been allocated for specific programs because there is not the
space available. For example, we have used local dollars to
supplement state dollars for preschool programs. This year the
state is now going to support that funding, and we have used
Title I dollars to supplement it in the past. Now we can
reallocate those Title I dollars in a different manner. But
some of the restraints that we have regarding how we can spend
those dollars may prohibit us from including as many students
as are eligible to participate.
Right now we have approximately 2000 students who are
eligible, and we are educating about 900, and space is
certainly a significant challenge. In some cases, we might have
to eliminate some programs.
When I was in Prince George's County and we began the all
day kindergarten program, we began to eliminate computer labs.
So we are competing with--you know, what is going to get us the
greatest gain. And we certainly had to make sacrifices. And I
think school systems across the country are making sacrifices.
Certainly in the urban school systems many buildings are just
outdated. They have roofing problems, and heating and air
conditioning problems, and a number of other problems that I
think certainly negatively impact our instructional programs.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Boehner. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from
California, Ms. Woolsey.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Because I've been
such a marvelously patient person here, I think you'll patient
with me, because I think my questions will take a little more
than 5 minutes, but I won't go on and on.
But I have two major questions, and I would like to ask you
to either answer one or both or comment or not at all. But
here's what happened today in one of my major newspapers. I
represent the districts two counties north of the Golden Gate
Bridge, suburbia at its best, by the way. But here's the
headlines. ``School standards law under fire. State lawmakers
are taking on the heavily criticized No Child Left Behind Act
in a seemingly well-orchestrated effort to exempt California
from provisions of the Federal education law, which they charge
duplicate long established standards of accountability in the
state's public schools and unfairly punish schools with large,
low income and minority enrollments. This resolution passed the
assembly 71 to 1 on Monday. It's supported by the state
superintendent of schools, the California Teachers'
Association, the California School Board's Association and
Small School District's Association.''
My question on this one, and then I'll go into my second
question, is how do I address this? I mean they know that I'm
not real keen on No Child Left Behind.
Now, first of all, thank you very much for your testimonies
and your patience. We very seldom have a hearing that lasts
this long. The interest is really great from the members of
this Committee.
It sounds to me like you've been saying small schools,
small classrooms, independent learning plans for students,
parental involvement, quality teachers, and oh, yes, indeed,
healthy, nourished children who are ready to learn when they
enter the classroom. I mean, that's what we need.
My question to you is why aren't we making that happen? Why
do we have to go, you know, identify schools and say you're not
good enough and not make what we know--we celebrate charter
schools, we celebrate public--private schools who are able to
meet these goals because they do exactly what we know we should
be doing in the public school environment. OK?
Mr. Vallas. I'll start out by saying you've got to have
accountability. The reason that we've moved as far as we have,
large districts, smaller districts, is because someone has
demanded accountability. We didn't start to move in Chicago
until we demanded accountability, accountability of the schools
for performance, accountability of the principals, of the
teachers. Indeed, we're moving into greater accountability of
the parents as difficult sometimes as that is.
So, you know, just--more money. Look, we need more money
for early childhood education. The state needs to, the Federal
Government needs to get into the business of helping districts
construct new schools and rehab existing schools. We would love
to have more Title I money. The special ed mandates need to be
fully funded. But, you know, all that will not be--will only go
so far if you don't have accountability. If you--
Ms. Woolsey. Excuse me, but--
Mr. Vallas.--have an act that doesn't have teeth in it, you
know, what--
Ms. Woolsey. But where is our accountability? Our
accountability is the state legislators that are against this
in my state, or on the Federal level. We know that we will have
more male teachers if we actually pay a competitive wage,
salary, for these important people in our children's lives.
Where's our accountability on this stuff?
Dr. Casserly. Good question. I'm not sure how--thanks,
fellow panelists, for looking down here.
I'm not sure how in the world we answer your question about
the California situation. Any number of state legislators
across the country have passed one resolution or another about
No Child Left Behind. I think you're obviously seeing in
California, like you see in a lot of states, kind of the early
frustration with what Mr. Ehlers characterized as a paradigm
shift.
You don't see as much pushback on this legislation in large
cities and urban communities, in part because we understand how
important it is to improve student achievement in the cities
and to close our sizable achievement gaps.
And we understand that oftentimes outside of the big cities
you haven't had quite the focus or attention on disaggregation
of results or being accountable for results that you've often
had in the urban areas. So it's causing something of a
pushback. But I think there are enough kind of good stories to
tell about some of the important gains that people are making
in student achievement to give us and give this Committee and
give Congress some hope and encouragement.
The act, in its broad scope, is on the right track. We
haven't got all of the details calibrated just right. There's
lots of technicalities that we're going to have to work out in
the years ahead, but the overall emphasis, priority and intent
of the act was the right one.
Dr. Raymond. I would like to speak to the California issue,
because it's my home state and because I spend a lot of time
looking at California schools.
My understanding is that particular legislative initiative
was actually not coming out of the urban districts but it was
coming out of the suburban and the rural districts. And the
concern was, I think, grounded in a failure to embrace the
paradigm, because it is in fact the case that if you look at
the progress of a large number of California suburban and rural
school districts, they are not making the grade. They are not
adding to the learning curve that their kids have and,
therefore, the likelihood of them hitting their AYP goals goes
down, and they're very upset about because all of a sudden the
light is being shined on them instead of on the big, ugly,
urban districts, which everybody is very happy that take the
limelight in the media.
So I think the initiative in California is slightly
displaced because we do, in fact, believe that every single
child should make academic progress. And if you've got a cozy,
comfortable district that's not making it, it's going to be
very uncomfortable for them to confront that. And so I think
you'll see a lot--what I see in this legislation that I've been
following in the last couple of weeks is that the people who
are really pushing that are not the urban districts, it's the
ones that are getting the spotlight for the first time.
Dr. Casserly. And that's why this conversation about the
end size is so important because you see in a lot of cases a
lot of these districts that are finally facing the scrutiny for
the very first time kind of welcoming this increase in the end
size. But in many ways what it is is a way to get out from
under the accountability systems that they have really not been
accustomed to in the past.
Chairman Boehner. If the gentlelady would yield, in my
opening statement I talked about the aggregate scores.
Especially in suburban and rural districts, aggregate test
scores have been going up for a number of years.
But when we agreed to disaggregate the data to shine the
light on the dark corners of what's happening in schoolrooms,
you'll find that it was easy to hide some children in overall
school aggregate numbers. But when you have disaggregate the
data for LAP students, special ed students, it makes especially
suburban schools and some rural schools very uncomfortable
because they were always able the hide behind the aggregate
numbers.
It was one of the most significant changes in ESEA because
the aggregate scores had to be reported under the '94 Act. When
we begin to disaggregate to get to every child, it becomes very
uncomfortable for some.
Mr. Kildee. I'm glad you corrected me. When I said '92 it
was '94.
Ms. Woolsey. Anybody else?
OK, then--
Mr. Vallas. I want to make one comment. A number of years
ago, not too long ago, Michael--I remember this study was done
in Illinois that looked at--this was before the act was
passed--that looked at performance of minority students not
only in Chicago but across the state. And one of the things
they discovered was that minority students did far better in
Chicago than they did in the suburban districts, many affluent
districts, many districts with very high test scores where 80,
90 percent of the kids are meeting or exceeding state
standards. And that would have--and this was before the mandate
that that date be disaggregated.
Some of the biggest critics of this act just happened to be
superintendents in some of the most affluent districts. As my
colleagues and others from the Committee have states, the
disaggregation of data has kind of, you know, shown all the
deficiencies that exist in both large urban districts, suburban
districts, rural districts.
I'm supportive of the act not only because of the
disaggregation of the data, but it's kind of put us all in the
same boat now so that we can look at our problems collectively,
because the bottom line is you have many affluent districts
that have been doing not only not a more effective job but in
some cases a much less effective job with the very at-risk
students that not only is the act attempting to address but
Brown vs. the Board of Education attempted to address with its
historic ruling 50 years ago.
Dr. Smith. I'll just add again, I spent 6 years in North
Carolina. Some of the most dramatic shift in demographic
populations of school age children were in the rural portions,
smaller, rural districts in North Carolina with huge swings in
demographic percentages. And for those communities and those
districts, their survival depends on public education, the
ability to adapt and to shift and to deal with the challenges
of No Child Left Behind to adapt to the new population that
they're serving for the state's survival.
Now I'm serving at a school district that is much more
suburban than Charlotte, North Carolina, and the paradigm shift
that Dr. Casserly speaks about is very real and very difficult
and very painful, where the vast majority doesn't necessarily
see the need. But it is a journey that is also very rewarding
at the end once all educators in the community embraces the
fact that we can be successful for all and need to be
responsible for all.
So again, it is the early stage of the shift in thinking
about education in America.
Mr. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, panel.
Chairman Boehner. Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. Mr. Chairman, since you're going to keep the
record open for--
Chairman Boehner. Fourteen days.
Mr. Kildee.--14 days, there are some questions which Mr.
Hinojosa would like to have answered by the panel.
Chairman Boehner. So ordered.
Let me just thank our panelists for their excellent
testimony and their insight. I have to say this was one of the
best hearings we've had during the almost 4 years I've been
Chairman. It wouldn't have happened without all of you.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
Statement of Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Ohio
While the results of the recent Council of the Great City Schools
report, ``Beating the Odds,'' found some progress being made in our
nation's urban schools, schools cannot be expected to consistently
provide quality learning environments without adequate funding. Yet
again this year, the President's budget underfunds the No Child Left
Behind Act. Title I of the law, which provides funding to schools in
the greatest need, is especially hard hit in this shortfall. The
administration has requested $13.3 billion for the fiscal year 2005 in
Title I funding, which is over $7 billion short of the promised level.
This is simply unacceptable.
The effects of education underfunding on the federal level are far
reaching. When local schools don't get the resources they need, our
children suffer. Because of failed federal policy and extreme state
budget cuts in Ohio, just this week, the Cleveland city schools have
had to cut over 600 teaching positions and 1,400 total employees.
Administrators expect that class size will increase anywhere from five
to seven students per class. In addition to staff layoffs, the board
has also been forced to reduce funding for extracurricular programs and
textbook purchases.
It is wrong to champion the importance and significance of academic
gains being made by students and then refuse to take the actions
necessary to further those gains, but this is what the administration
has done. We must work to ensure full funding of the No Child Left
Behind Act and live up to our responsibilities to the children of
America.
______
Response from Dr. Margaret Raymond to Questions Submitted for the
Record
Questions from Hon. Ruben Hinojosa
I would like to thank the witnesses for their testimony. I would
like to see this committee take a more active role in monitoring the
implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act. There is too much at
stake for us not to engage in an on-going dialogue with the
Administration and other stakeholders on the implementation of the Act.
One of the Aspects of the No Child Left Behind that needs
additional attention, especially in our large urban schools is the
issue of graduation rates. Numerous reports have come to the same
conclusion that roughly one-third of our high school students fail to
graduate with their peers. For Hispanic and African American students,
that figure hovers around 50 percent. In our urban schools, graduation
rates can be 50 percent or sometimes even lower. Under NCLB, our
secondary schools are not getting the support they need to turn this
around. In fact, NCLB does not even hold secondary schools accountable
for high school graduation rates disaggregated in the same way that
math and reading test scores are. That is why Congresswoman Susan Davis
and I introduced H.R. 3085, Graduation for All Act, to target resources
to our secondary school to improve their graduation rates through a
focus on adolescent literacy, individual graduation plans for the
students most at risk of not graduation from high school, and increased
accountability for graduation rates. I am interested in hearing Dr.
Newsome's and Dr. Raymond's views on the need for this kind of
legislative effort.
The Congressman raises an important question: while the details of
NCLB at present focus on academic performance, an implicit assumption
is that academic attainment should follow directly.
The lessons from our research suggest that simply asking states to
report their graduation rates will not create the incentives that are
needed to drive change. Even if we had uniform definitions and data
collection practices about graduation rates--a much needed reform in
and of itself--it would be necessary to consider what impact a
mandatory rate would have on schools. My fear is that we would see a
repeat of the New York experience where the Regests diploma (which used
to be tied to rigorous academic standards) has been devalued for the
sake of raising the statistic.
This topic is one that would lend itself well to the kind of
public-private partnership that Mr. Vallas described yesterday. The
idea would be to keep the focus on academic performance via the
legislation and other policies, and then attempt to create personal
incentives for students to reach the graduation point because they have
a chance at higher education. An alternative would be to target some of
the Pell dollars to specific schools or geographies on a merit basis.
Our urban schools have large limited English proficient
populations, yet none of you directly addressed the achievement of this
sub-group of students in your testimony. Could you please share with us
the progress you are making with LEP students and how you are
implementing NCLB with respect to this population?
The data we used did not have enough historical data on LEP to
permit a full analysis of progress.