    [House Hearing, 110 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                           LOCAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE
                            NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT

    =======================================================================

                                 FIELD HEARING

                                   before the

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD,
                       ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                              EDUCATION AND LABOR

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                           ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                   HEARING HELD IN FLINT, MI, APRIL 12, 2007

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 110-19

                                   __________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor

                           Available on the Internet:
          http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html

                                   ----------
                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    34-417 PDF                      WASHINGTON : 2008

    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
    DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
    Washington, DC 20402-0001

                        COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR

                      GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman

    Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice       Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
        Chairman                             California,
    Donald M. Payne, New Jersey            Ranking Minority Member
    Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey        Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
    Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia  Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
    Lynn C. Woolsey, California          Michael N. Castle, Delaware
    Ruben Hinojosa, Texas                Mark E. Souder, Indiana
    Carolyn McCarthy, New York           Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
    John F. Tierney, Massachusetts       Judy Biggert, Illinois
    Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio             Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
    David Wu, Oregon                     Ric Keller, Florida
    Rush D. Holt, New Jersey             Joe Wilson, South Carolina
    Susan A. Davis, California           John Kline, Minnesota
    Danny K. Davis, Illinois             Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
    Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona            Kenny Marchant, Texas
    Timothy H. Bishop, New York          Tom Price, Georgia
    Linda T. Sanchez, California         Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
    John P. Sarbanes, Maryland           Charles W. Boustany, Jr.,
    Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania                 Louisiana
    David Loebsack, Iowa                 Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
    Mazie Hirono, Hawaii                 John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New
    Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania              York
    John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky            Rob Bishop, Utah
    Phil Hare, Illinois                  David Davis, Tennessee
    Yvette D. Clarke, New York           Timothy Walberg, Michigan
    Joe Courtney, Connecticut            Dean Heller, Nevada
    Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire

                         Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director
                       Vic Klatt, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD,
                       ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION

                       DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan, Chairman

    Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia  Michael N. Castle, Delaware,
    Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio               Ranking Minority Member
    Susan A. Davis, California           Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
    Danny K. Davis, Illinois             Mark E. Souder, Indiana
    Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona            Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
    Donald M. Payne, New Jersey          Judy Biggert, Illinois
    Rush D. Holt, New Jersey             Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
    Linda T. Sanchez, California         Rob Bishop, Utah
    John P. Sarbanes, Maryland           Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
    Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania             Ric Keller, Florida
    David Loebsack, Iowa                 Joe Wilson, South Carolina
    Mazie Hirono, Hawaii                 Charles W. Boustany, Jr.,
    Phil Hare, Illinois                      Louisiana
    Lynn C. Woolsey, California          John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New
    Ruben Hinojosa, Texas                    York
                                         Dean Heller, Nevada

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on April 12, 2007...................................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Davis, Hon. Danny K., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Illinois..........................................     3
        Kildee, Hon. Dale E., Chairman, Subcommittee on Early
          Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education..............     1
            Additional submissions for the record:
                Decker, Curtis, executive director, the National
                  Disability Rights Network..........................    45
                Doneson, Susan, teacher, program supervisor, Meridian
                  High School........................................    50
                Lose, Dr. Mary K., Oakland University................    51
                Schmidt, Linda, policy adviser, Michigan Department
                  of Human Services..................................    53
                Shanahan, Carol, teacher, Vern Van Y Elementary
                  School.............................................    54
                Turner, Vickie, instructor of future educators,
                  Ferris State University............................    55
                American Library Association.........................    57
                Jordan, Paul G., LMSW, board member, City of Flint
                  School District....................................    62
                ``Position Paper on Modified Curriculum, West
                  Michigan Alternative High Schools''................    64
                ``Position Paper on Graduation Rate, West Michigan
                  Alternative High Schools''.........................    67

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Burroughs, Steve, president, United Teachers of Flint, on
          behalf of the National Education Associatio................    12
            Prepared statement of....................................    15
        Debardelaben, Andrea, parent.................................    19
            Prepared statement of....................................    21
        Russell, Jan D., assistant superintendent, Genesee
          Intermediate School District...............................    10
            Prepared statement of....................................    11
        Solis, David, director of State, Federal and local programs,
          on behalf of Dr. Walter Milton, Jr., superintendent, Flint
          Community Schools..........................................     6
            Prepared statement of Dr. Milton.........................     8
        Tilley, Donald, social studies department chair, Central High
          School.....................................................    23
            Prepared statement of....................................    25

                           LOCAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE
                            NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT

                                  ----------

                            Thursday, April 12, 2007

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                        Subcommittee on Early Childhood,

                       Elementary and Secondary Education

                        Committee on Education and Labor

                                 Washington, DC

                                  ----------

        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:02 a.m., at
    the Sarvis Conference Center, 1231 East Kearsley Street, Flint,
    Michigan, Hon. Dale Kildee [chairman of the subcommittee]
    Presiding.
        Present: Representatives Kildee and Davis of Illinois.
        Staff Present: Julius Lloyd Horwich, Policy Advisor for the
    Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary
    Education.
        Mr. Kildee. A quorum being present, the hearing of the
    subcommittee will come to order.
        Pursuant to Committee Rule 12(a) any member may submit an
    opening statement in writing which will be made part of the
    permanent record.
        I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
        I'm pleased to welcome my fellow subcommittee member, Mr.
    Danny Davis from Chicago, welcome the public and our witnesses
    to Flint and to this hearing on local perspectives on the No
    Child Left Behind Act.
        In February this subcommittee held its first hearing of the
    new Congress. I realized then how meaningful it was for me to
    hold a gavel again after twelve years. It is nice. And it's
    even more meaningful for me today to hold that gavel here in
    Flint, Michigan, where I was born, raised and taught just
    across the campus here at Flint Central High School.
        As chairman of this subcommittee one of my top priorities
    is to work with my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, and
    educators in Michigan and around the country to improve and
    reauthorize the No Child Left Behind Act.
        We in Michigan know better than anyone else that our
    success in the 21st century economy will be directly tied to
    our ability to continue to produce a high quality trained and
    educated work force. And that ability is, of course, directly
    tied to our ability to provide every child with a world class
    education.
        Since 2002 Congress and the President have underfunded No
    Child Left Behind by $56 billion. Last year alone fully funding
    No Child Left Behind would have meant an additional $331
    million for Michigan schools.
        Now, $331 million in that one year alone would have made a
    tremendous difference in how we could implement No Child Left
    Behind. It has become really an underfunded mandate.
        There are other things in the bill that we'll work on too,
    but we've got to work hard with the appropriators to make sure
    that you have the resources to carry out whatever mandates are
    in No Child Left Behind.
        As a matter of fact, the President's proposed budget for
    fiscal 2008, the one we're working on right now, would bring
    that total up to $71 billion underfunding. However, I'm hopeful
    that with the changes in Washington this year we'll start to do
    better.
        But funding is only one part of improving No Child Left
    Behind. We need to understand the impact that No Child Left
    Behind has on academic standards and how it can support
    standards that will help our students compete with students
    around the world. We need to know about the quality of tests
    under No Child Left Behind--That's very important, the
    quality--including those tests for limited English proficient
    students and students with disabilities, and how No Child Left
    Behind can support educators' interests in high quality tests
    that help teachers diagnose students' strengths and weaknesses.
        We'll look at the indicators that determine Adequate Yearly
    Progress and at different models such as growth models. And I
    invite any of you to discuss growth models. We'll hear your
    testimony first, and we'll be asking questions and we can do a
    little freewheeling at that point.
        And tell us what we need to know about our schools and how
    growth models maybe can help those schools get credit for the
    progress they make.
        And with regards to the effects of not making AYP,
    including public school choice and tutoring, we will ask how
    the law can best help each student and also help schools and
    school systems implement long-term systemic reforms.
        Because basically the structure of No Child Left Behind is
    standards, tests to those standards, adequate yearly progress,
    and then effects, consequences, whatever you might want to call
    them. And those four elements will probably remain in place,
    those four elements, standards, tests, AYP and the consequences
    of not meeting AYP.
        Some use harsher terms than consequences. I very often use
    the neutral term effects, but we'll ask you to comment on that
    also.
        So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. We have a
    wide range of local perspectives on how No Child has worked and
    what we can do to make it work better. And I'm confident that
    your testimony will play an important role in the committee's
    understanding of how the law has impacted not only Flint, Bay
    City, Saginaw, Genesee County, Saginaw County, Bay County,
    Tuscola County, but also places like them all around the
    country.
        So I look forward to working with Mr. Davis and with my
    ranking member, Governor Castle, who is the ranking republican
    member of this subcommittee, former governor of Delaware, and a
    person who approaches this, as Mr. Davis will tell you, without
    any partisanship. We are blessed in our committee to have
    Governor Castle as the ranking republican member. And also we
    have Mr. McKeon from California as the ranking member of the
    full committee.
        So I thank all of you for being here. I'm going to call
    upon my colleague Danny Davis.
        Danny was chosen by the people of the seventh congressional
    district of Illinois to serve them in 1996. Prior to becoming a
    member of Congress he has a rich background. He served on the
    Cook County board of commissioners for six years. Previously he
    served for eleven years as a member of the Chicago City Council
    as alderman for the 29th ward. And you know if you can survive
    Chicago politics you can survive anything.
        Before seeking public office Congressman Davis has had
    productive careers as an educator, community organizer, health
    planner, administrator and civil rights advocate. He's received
    hundreds of awards from around the country. He's traveled
    around the world. He brings to this committee a very rich
    background. It's my pleasure to yield to Mr. Davis for his
    opening remarks.
        Mr. Davis. Thank you very much.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And let me first of all
    indicate how pleased and delighted that I am to be in Flint,
    Michigan, a city with a long history, a city that represents
    much of the core of what America is like. It represents much of
    what America has been, but also much of the promise of what
    America is to become. And so I'm pleased to be here to join
    with you.
        I want to commend you for the tremendous leadership that
    you have provided as a member of Congress as you continue to
    serve as the second ranking democrat on the full education
    committee, working with our chairman George Miller from
    California, and also for the stellar performance that you have
    provided as chairman of this subcommittee. I think that all of
    America is indeed fortunate that we have a Dale Kildee in the
    United States House of Representatives, and I thank you.
        Being here for me is very interesting. I come to my notions
    about education from many factors and different vantage points.
    First of all, I grew up in rural Arkansas, went to a one-room
    school where one teacher, Ms. King, taught eight grades plus
    the little primer and the big primer all at the same time.
        Matter of fact, a school year for us was five months. I
    never went to school more than five months during the time that
    I was growing up as a youngster. We attended school January,
    February, March, April. School ended the first week of May, and
    then we attended again from about the middle of July until the
    middle of August.
        But people in our communities and our neighborhoods valued
    education. As a matter of fact, my father, who finished the
    fourth grade, used to tell us that the real value of education
    was that the more you learn the more you realize how little you
    know.
        And of course we were taught to read, and we read many
    biographies. Abraham Lincoln supposedly said at one time that
    education makes a man easy to lead but difficult to drive; easy
    to govern, but impossible to enslave.
        Of course Malcolm X had something that he said in terms of
    education is our passport to the future, for our tomorrow
    belongs to those who prepare today.
        One of my favorites, though, about education is something
    that Harriet Tubman was supposed to have said, and that is
    ``Education is a good thing. Some folks say that it makes fools
    out of people.'' But then she turned around and said, ``But I
    know more fools who don't have any. And if you're going to be a
    fool, it's best to be an educated fool.''
        And so when we approach No Child Left Behind, when we
    approach theories and practices, when we seek solutions and
    improvements I think about the fact that finding solutions to
    problems we face in education, meeting the needs and facing the
    challenges is sort of like a person getting religion. I've
    never known anybody to have enough. Everybody that considers
    themself to be seriously religious is always trying to get a
    little bit closer. You know, we look at some of the songs that
    people sing, ``Just a Closer Walk With Thee.''
        And so when we look for solutions to finding ways to help
    young people to learn, to help school districts to be more
    effective, to help teachers whom I consider to be the salt of
    the earth, pillars of the universe, individuals who give of
    themselves for the benefit of others, as we put all of these
    things together a big question becomes are we really willing to
    pay the price that is necessary to achieve the goals and
    objectives that we seek?
        Frederick Douglass, whom I admire for the thought of
    telling the truth a great deal, suggested that there was one
    thing he knew if he didn't know anything else, and that is that
    in this world we may not get everything that we pay for but we
    most certainly will pay for everything that we get. And if
    we're going to pay to have the kind of education system, if
    we're going to pay to have the kind of professionalism, if
    we're going to have the kind of administrators, the kind of
    checkpoints and checkmarks that the No Child Left Behind
    legislation suggests that we ought to have then we're going to
    have to also pay in money.
        I don't believe that money solves everything, and I don't
    believe that everything is solved, but I do believe that in
    order to have resources balanced you must realize what it is
    that you want and then be prepared to pay to make it happen.
        I commend all of our witnesses who have come, and I know
    that we're going to hear some interesting and exciting
    concepts. But I also believe that at the end of the day the
    real way that we have the best education systems is to make
    sure that there is something that I call serious involvement
    and participation of local residents, serious involvement of
    parents, of people in the community.
        If a community determines that education is valuable to it
    and to its children, I guarantee you there will be achievement
    no matter what the socioeconomic status.
        And so again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this
    hearing. It's my pleasure to be here with you, commend you for
    what you have done over the past thirty years or so that you've
    been a member of Congress, and of course if the people of Flint
    and the surrounding area is willing then maybe you'll spend
    thirty more.
        Thank you so very much.
        Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much, Danny.
        I think you understand now why the people of the seventh
    district of Illinois keep sending Mr. Davis back to Congress.
    Obviously you saw his intellect, and also I pray why can't Dale
    Kildee have a voice like Danny Davis?
        We have five witnesses here today. There are some I know
    who want to submit testimony for the record. And if you do want
    to submit testimony, Lloyd Horwich is the counsel for this
    subcommittee. Contact him and we will make sure that that
    becomes part of the official record. We'll leave the record
    open for seven days for that purpose, as we generally do for
    members of Congress, too.
        I would like to introduce the very distinguished panel of
    witnesses with us here today.
        It is particularly a pleasure to introduce the first
    witness, David Solis. He's the Director of State, Federal and
    local programs for the Flint Community Schools and a former
    teacher. In 2005 he received the Educator Award from the
    Michigan Association of State and Federal Program Specialists.
    And in 1985 and '86 David Solis worked for me in Washington,
    D.C., and left Washington in a blaze of glory, having helped
    rewrite the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, played a
    major role in that rewrite, and particularly great emphasis on
    updating bilingual education, made some profound changes in
    bilingual education. Then he came back to Flint here and worked
    for me in Flint, and then returned to his first love,
    education, and has his present position today.
        Jan Russell is Assistant Superintendent for Special
    Services for the Genesee Intermediate School District. He is
    responsible for programs and services for more than 11,000
    students with disabilities. GISD's special services has been
    recognized for its innovative programs for its students with
    severe disabilities and the use of technology in special
    education.
        And Steve Burroughs is President of the United Teachers of
    Flint and taught in the Flint city schools for fifteen years.
        Andrea Debardelaben is a day-care provider and has been a
    member of the Michigan PTA for eight years. She's a parent of
    two sons who attend Longfellow Elementary School in Saginaw and
    a daughter who attends the Saginaw Arts and Science Academy,
    good schools in my congressional district.
        And, Don Tilley is Chair of the Social Studies Department
    and a social studies teacher at Bay City Central High School.
    In 2001 he was named the Saginaw Valley High School Association
    Teacher of the Year. In 2006 he was elected a Bay County
    commissioner in the ninth district in Bay County. He and I had
    the pleasure of knocking on doors together up in Bay County.
        For those of you who have not testified before the
    subcommittee, I'll explain our lighting system and the five-
    minute rule.
        Everyone, including members, is limited to five minutes of
    presentation or questioning, and the green light will be
    illuminated when you begin to speak, and when you see the
    yellow light it means that you have one minute remaining, and
    when you see the red light it means that your time has expired
    and you need to conclude your testimony. There's no ejection
    seat, however. We'll let you finish your paragraph or your
    thought.
        But please be certain as you testify to turn on and speak
    into the microphone in front of you and turn it off when you
    have finished. Our court reporter has to be able to hear every
    word so we have a correct record.
        We'll now hear from our first witness, Mr. David Solis.

    STATEMENT OF DAVID SOLIS, DIRECTOR OF STATE, FEDERAL AND LOCAL
                   PROGRAMS, FLINT COMMUNITY SCHOOLS

        Mr. Solis. Chairman Kildee, Congressman Davis, it is indeed
    an honor and a pleasure to be here to be able to testify before
    this subcommittee.
        I'm here on behalf of our superintendent, Dr. Milton.
        Mr. Kildee. Pull the mic a little closer to you.
        Mr. Solis. Flint is the birthplace of General Motors, the
    home of Charles Stewart Mott Foundation and the birthplace of
    the Community Schools Concept.
        The school district is an urban school district with a
    dwindling student population. At its peak the district had
    approximately 47,000 students. Due to economic factors,
    particularly the downsizing of the automotive industry,
    thousands of jobs have been lost. Consequently, the student
    population has declined to approximately 16,500 students and
    the city's population is expected to decline from the last
    census count of 124,943 people.
        The school district is currently comprised of 45 schools
    that include 25 community elementary schools, four foundation,
    success and commencement academies and six specialty schools.
    Some 70 percent of the students receive free or reduced price
    lunches and milk. Thirty-eight of the forty-five schools in the
    district are above 35 percent low income and qualify for Title
    I services, and 35 have a poverty level equal to or greater
    than 50 percent. And as we know, the purpose of Title I is to
    improve the academic achievement of the disadvantaged, and we
    have a large population of disadvantaged students.
        How has NCLB supported our reform effort here? NCLB funding
    has played an integral part in the Flint Community Schools'
    Academic Reform Model.
        The reform model incorporates the six essential components
    for highly effective learning communities. First, valid and
    reliable assessments. Second, scientifically based curriculum
    and instruction. Third, sustained professional development.
    Fourth, capable leadership. Fifth, responsible fiscal
    management. And finally, parent involvement and community
    relations.
        A significant amount of the resources provided under NCLB
    have been utilized for the implementation of the six essential
    components. Ongoing assessments of our students have made it
    available with these funds. The assessments provide teachers
    with data to drive instruction based on the academic needs of
    our children.
        NCLB funds have assisted with the purchase of
    scientifically based curriculum materials for supplemental
    intervention services for students performing below grade
    level. Sustained professional development has been made
    available to principals, teachers and paraprofessionals as well
    as other staff. In addition, a leadership institute with the
    University of Michigan is currently being implemented for our
    administrative staff.
        NCLB funds continue to support parent involvement and
    assist with Title I parent advisory councils in all our Title I
    buildings. And they're very active councils.
        Also, NCLB has provided for the establishment of our
    Mentors Committed to Excellence program.
        NCLB has also provided for limited, and let me repeat that,
    limited opportunities for secondary schools as indicated. And
    as Chairman Kildee had mentioned, we are currently underfunded.
        These are some of the limited high school reform
    initiatives that we have embarked upon: Schools within schools.
    Ninth grade academies. Increased focus on literacy. Adding
    rigor and relevance to the academic program. Increasing
    student-teacher and student-counselor relationships. Increased
    focus on differentiated learning, including gender based
    programs, gifted and talented programs.
        Once again, these resources are limited for our secondary
    reform initiatives.
        Also, how has the funding from NCLB impacted our district?
    Well, it has had a significant impact. For example, Title I
    Part A, we had $15.5 million through the funds that are driven
    to this district under Title I Part A.
        With these funds we have reading and math intervention
    teachers for our Push-in, Pull Out, Whole-Part-Whole academic
    strategies.
        It also provides for our Tier 1 coaches for the four core
    subjects. And the coaches are the ones that review all the
    materials to ensure that they will address the academic needs
    of children that are performing below grade level. Once again,
    they address the areas of ELA, mathematics, science and social
    studies.
        We have parent facilitators in most of our buildings. Once
    again, it's a function of the budget. And as we drive the funds
    to the buildings, buildings have to make tough decisions on
    what they can fund through the Title I funds. Most of our
    buildings have Title I parent facilitators that do provide
    support for our parents, and each one conducts a monthly Title
    I parent involvement meeting.
        We also have Title I Parent Advisory Councils, not only at
    the building level but at the district level.
        We have behavioral specialists who work with children so
    that we don't suspend or expel children. If they are having
    difficulty in terms of behavior we have behavioral specialists
    to work with them in terms of working with their behavior so
    they are not out of school.
        We also have computer technologists that provide the
    integration of technology into our curriculum. Also they
    provide support for our children and teachers in terms of any
    computer-based programs that we have implemented. It provides
    for intervention, supplies and materials.
        Extended day learning opportunities, extended year learning
    opportunities--and I'm speeding it up because I know my time is
    up, but these are our after school programs, our summer school
    programs, our Mentors Committed to Excellence and professional
    development.
        Now, I'm just going to briefly go through these other ones.
    Education of migratory children provides for paraprofessionals,
    migrant recruiters, parent coordinators for health and social
    needs.
        Title II is a very significant funding source for us here.
    It provides for Tier 2 coaches that provide academic
    instructional models within the classroom to provide coaching
    for other teachers that are there to assist our children.
        Title III, which is our limited English proficient funds,
    we have a parent coordinator, translators and
    paraprofessionals. We have 600 students that are LEP. Once
    again, there's a need for additional funds for Title V,
    innovative programs, and those are to fund our IB program, our
    international baccalaureate program.
        So at this point I will conclude, because I know my time is
    up, but there are some challenges we face. Most of them deal
    with the appropriate level of funding to fully implement all
    these reform models that will have a dramatic impact on our
    students.
        Thank you very much.
        [The statement of Mr. Milton follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Dr. Walter Milton, Jr.,
                    Superintendent, Flint Community Schools

        Chairman Kildee and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify this morning.
    Introduction
        Flint is the birthplace of General Motors, the home of the Charles
    Stewart Mott Foundation, and the birthplace of the Community Schools
    Concept. The school district is an urban school district with a
    dwindling student population. At its peek, the district had
    approximately 47,000 students. Due to economic factors, particularly
    the downsizing of the automotive industry, thousands of jobs have been
    lost. Consequently, the student population has declined to
    approximately 16,500 pupils, and the city's population is expected to
    decline from the last census count of 124,943 people.
        The school district is currently comprised of 45 schools that
    include 25 community elementary schools, four foundation, success and
    commencement academies and six specialty schools. Some 70% of the
    students receive free price lunches and milk. Thirty-eight of the 45
    schools in the district are above 35% low income and qualify for Title
    I services, and, 35 have a poverty level equal to or greater than 50%.
    The purpose of Title I is to improve the academic achievement of the
    disadvantaged.
    NCLB and Flint Community Schools' Reform
        NCLB funding has played an integral part in the Flint Community
    Schools' Academic Reform Model. The reform model incorporates the six
    essential components for highly effective learning communities:
        1. Valid and Reliable Assessments
        2. Scientifically Based Researched Curriculum and Instruction
        3. Sustained Professional Development
        4. Capable Leadership
        5. Responsible Fiscal Management
        6. Parent Involvement and Community Relations
        A significant amount of the resources provided under NCLB have been
    utilized for the implementation of the essential components. Ongoing
    assessments of our students have been made available with these funds.
    The assessments provide teachers with data to drive instruction based
    on the academic needs of the children.
        NCLB funds have assisted with the purchase of scientifically based
    curriculum materials for supplemental intervention services for
    students performing below grade level. Sustained professional
    development has been made available to principals, teachers and
    paraprofessionals as well as other staff. In addition, a Leadership
    Institute with the University of Michigan is currently being
    implemented for our administrative staff.
        NCLB funds continue to support parent involvement and assisted with
    Title I parent advisory councils in all our Title I buildings. Also,
    NCLB funds have provided for the establishment of our ``Mentors
    Committed to Excellence'' program.
        NCLB has also provided for limited opportunities for secondary
    schools as indicated below.
        High School Reform Initiatives:
         Schools within schools
         Ninth Grade Academies
         Increased focus on literacy
         Adding rigor and relevance to the academic program
         Increasing student-teacher and student-counselor
    relationships
         Increased focus on differentiating learning, including:
         gender-based programs
         gifted and talented programs
    NCLB Support to Flint Community Schools
        The following is a list of staff and programs funded with NCLB.
                Title I, Part A--Improving the Academic Achievement of the
                        Disadvantaged
         Reading and mathematics intervention teachers (Push-in,
    Pull Out, Whole-Part-Whole)
         Tier 1 Coaches--ELA, Mathematics, Science and Social
    Studies
         Parent Facilitators
         Title I Parent Advisory Councils
         Behavioral Specialists
         Computer Technologist
         Intervention Supplies and Materials
         Extended Day Learning Opportunities (After School Academic
    Program)
         Extended Year Learning Opportunities (Summer School
    Program)
         Mentors Committed to Excellence
         Professional Development
                Title I Part C--Education of Migratory Children
         Paraprofessionals
         Migrant Recruiter
         Parent Coordinator--Health and social needs
                Title II, Part A--Preparing, Training, and Recruiting
                        Highly Qualified Teachers and Principals
         Tier 2 Coaches--Elementary and Secondary Schools
         Professional Development in the four core academic subject
    areas
                Title III--Language Instruction for Limited English
                        Proficient Students
         Parent Coordinator
         Translator
         Paraprofessionals
                Title V, Part A--Innovative Programs
         Funds for application for the International Baccalaureate
    Program
         Supplies and materials for International Baccalaureate
    Program
                Title VII--Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native
                        Education
    NCLB Challenges
         Funding for additional coaches, intervention teachers
         Funding to attract Highly Qualified Staff to urban areas
         Demonstrated student achievement of 100 % proficient
    including special education students
         SES and Choice set-aside
         15% carryover limit
         SES alignment with school reform
         Cuts in Title IID--Technology
         Cuts in Title V--Innovative Program Funds (IB program)
    High School Reform Barriers to Success
         Lack of financial resources
         Lack of human resources including
         Counselors
         Coaches
         Intervention Teachers
         Math and Science teachers
         Career Tech teachers
                                     ______

        Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Solis. And all your testimony,
    and some may have even more extensive than what they will be
    reading, all of your testimony will be included in its entirety
    in the record.
        So I call upon Mr. Russell.

    STATEMENT OF JAN D. RUSSELL, ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT, GENESEE
                      INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT

        Mr. Russell. I want to thank you, Chairman Kildee and
    members of the subcommittee, for this opportunity to provide
    this testimony as you engage in the process of reauthorizing No
    Child Left Behind. And we also appreciate your decision to host
    this hearing in our community as well.
        As indicated, my name is Jan Russell, assistant
    superintendent, Genesee Intermediate School District.
        GISD is a regional education service agency serving the 21
    public school districts and 10 public school academies in
    Genesee County. Its annual budget is over $151 million, and the
    organization employs over a thousand staff members.
        Genesee County, of course, as you know, is located in lower
    southeast Michigan and is the fifth most populous county in
    Michigan with a student population over 85,000.
        And, of course, Genesee County has urban, suburban and
    rural populations, adding to the diversity of cultures and
    accessibility of services in the county. Of course, as you
    know, Flint with 29 percent of the county's total population is
    the urban and geographic center of the county and the fourth
    largest city in the state.
        In GISD's Department of Special Services, we coordinate
    special education for over 11,000 students with disabilities
    who reside in our local districts. We provide consultation,
    physical and occupational therapy, school social work, student
    evaluations, and many other services on behalf of our
    districts.
        We provide classroom programs to nearly 1,000 students in
    three center facilities. Two of our centers, Elmer Knopf
    Learning Center and Marion Crouse Instructional Center house
    programs for students with autism spectrum disorder, cognitive
    impairment and students with multiple impairments.
        Our local districts refer these students because they, and,
    most importantly, their parents, believe that an appropriate
    education can only be provided in a special school, a special
    school that is specifically designed to meet the individual
    needs of each student.
        These needs are addressed through individualized education
    programs, or IEPs, that focus on functional skills, such as
    personal care and independence, feeding, basic communication of
    wants and needs, management of unstructured time and the full
    access to the community.
        Our services are provided by highly skilled teachers and
    support staff who also address other student needs such as
    toileting, seizures, mobility, communication, assistive
    technology, medical care for personal equipment, such as
    tracheal tubes and respiratory or breathing apparatus, and a
    whole host of other special services that I would maintain most
    citizens don't even realize that schools have to provide in
    schools.
        All of our students take the alternate assessment called
    MiAccess, which is Michigan's assessment instrument for
    students with severe disabilities. None of our students are in
    a course of study that leads to a high school diploma.
    Furthermore, our individualized education programs are
    developed and approved by parents and teachers, those closest
    to our students.
        The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act
    of 2004, as you know, requires many things of our school
    districts. The heart and soul of IDEA is that we must provide a
    free and appropriate public education to each individual
    student with a disability in the least restrictive environment,
    generally up to the age of twenty-one, even though in Michigan
    we require that those services be provided up to the age of
    twenty-six here.
        IDEA also requires that we have a full continuum of
    placements and settings for our students, including special
    schools like Marion Crouse and Elmer Knopf.
        Now, the important issue that I want to bring to your
    attention today is that No Child Left Behind requires that
    every district and school building must make Adequate Yearly
    Progress, or AYP, in meeting the goal of 100 percent
    proficiency on state assessments. This is measured by
    standardized tests that reflect a universal standard for all
    students.
        There are no such universal academic standards for students
    with severe disabilities. In contrast, we are accountable to
    our parents for the IEPs we develop together for our special
    students. Therefore, we must determine our success on the
    achievements of each student based on his or her unique
    educational plan.
        While NCLB as implemented allows a percentage of students
    with disabilities to be measured against alternate or modified
    standards, we do not believe that the law contemplates school
    districts such as GISD in which virtually all of the students
    for whom we are accountable, those in our Crouse and Knopf
    centers, fit under the definition of students who should be
    measured against alternate or modified assessments.
        So in conclusion, we believe that the law should recognize
    unique districts such as ours with an accountability system
    that allows for the fact that we do not fit the standard mold,
    and also it should incorporate our students' IEPs and
    measurements of progress based on each individual student's
    goals.
        We find it neither accurate nor appropriate that we might
    be designated as not making AYP because of an accountability
    system that does not match what our students and their families
    need.
        So thank you again for this opportunity, and of course at
    the end of testimony I'd be glad to answer any questions.
        [The statement of Mr. Russell follows:]

        Prepared Statement of Jan D. Russell, Assistant Superintendent,
                      Genesee Intermediate School District

        I want to thank you Chairman Kildee and members of the subcommittee
    for this opportunity to provide this testimony as you engage in the
    process of reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
    known as No Child Left Behind. We appreciate your decision to host this
    hearing in our community.
        My name is Jan Russell, Assistant Superintendent, Genesee
    Intermediate School District.
        Genesee Intermediate School District (GISD) is a Regional
    Educational Service Agency serving the 21 public school districts and
    10 public school academies in Genesee County. Its annual budget is over
    $151 Million and the organization employs over 1,000 staff members.
    Genesee County is located in lower southeast Michigan and is the fifth
    most populous county in Michigan. Its student population is 85,000.
        Genesee County has urban, suburban and rural populations, adding to
    the diversity of cultures and accessibility to services in the county.
    Flint, with 29% of the county's total population, is the urban and
    geographic center of the county and the fourth largest city in the
    state.
        In GISD's Department of Special Services we coordinate special
    education for over 11,000 students with disabilities who reside in our
    local school districts. We provide consultation, physical and
    occupational therapy, school social work services, student evaluations,
    and many other services on behalf of our districts. We provide
    classroom programs to nearly 1,000 students in three center facilities.
    Two of our centers, Elmer Knopf Learning Center and Marion D. Crouse
    Instructional Center, house programs for students with Autism Spectrum
    Disorder, Cognitive Impairment, and students with Multiple Impairments.
    Our local districts refer these students because they, and most
    importantly, their parents, believe that an appropriate education can
    only be provided in a special school: a special school that is
    specifically designed to meet the individual needs of each student.
        These needs are addressed through Individualized Education Programs
    (IEPs) that focus on functional skills such as personal care and
    independence, feeding, basic communication of wants and needs,
    management of unstructured time, and fully accessing their community.
    Our services are provided by highly skilled teachers and support staff
    who also address other student needs such as toileting, seizures,
    mobility, communication, assistive technology, medical care for
    personal equipment such as tracheal tubes and respiratory or breathing
    apparatus, and a whole host of other very special services that most
    citizens would not believe are required to be provided in schools. All
    of our students take the alternate assessment, called MiAccess, which
    is Michigan's assessment instrument for students with severe
    disabilities. None of our students are in a course of study that leads
    to a high school diploma. Furthermore, our individualized educational
    programs are developed and approved by parents and teachers; those
    closest to our students.
        The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004
    requires many things of school districts. The heart and soul of IDEA is
    that we must provide a free and appropriate public education to each
    individual student with a disability in the least restrictive
    environment, generally up to the age of twenty-one, while Michigan
    requires that services be provided up to the age of twenty-six. IDEA
    also requires that we have a full continuum of placements and settings
    for our students, including special schools like Marion Crouse and
    Elmer Knopf.
        The important issue that I want to bring to your attention today is
    that No Child Left Behind requires that every district and school
    building must make adequate yearly progress (AYP) in meeting the goal
    of 100% proficiency on state assessments. This is measured by
    standardized tests that reflect a universal standard for all students.
    There are no such universal academic standards for students with severe
    disabilities. In contrast, we are accountable to our parents for the
    individualized programs we develop together for our special students.
    Therefore we must determine our success on the achievements of each
    student based on his/her unique educational plan. While NCLB as
    implemented allows a percentage of students with disabilities to be
    measured against alternate or modified standards, we do not believe
    that the law contemplates school districts such as GISD, in which
    virtually all of the students for whom we are held accountable--those
    in our Crouse and Knopf Centers--fit under the definition of students
    who should be measured against alternate or modified assessments.
        In conclusion, we believe that the law should recognize unique
    districts such as ours with an accountability system that allows for
    the fact that we do not fit the standard mold and incorporates our
    students' IEPs and measurements of progress based on each student's
    goals. We find it neither accurate nor appropriate that we might be
    designated as not making AYP because of an accountability system that
    doesn't match what our students and their families need.
        Thank you once again for this opportunity and would be glad to
    answer any questions.
                                     ______

        Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Russell.
        Mr. Burroughs.

                STATEMENT OF STEVE BURROUGHS, PRESIDENT,
                        UNITED TEACHERS OF FLINT

        Mr. Burroughs. Chairman Kildee and Representative Davis, I
    thank you for the opportunity to speak to the subcommittee
    today on these very important issues. I am honored to be able
    to represent the United Teachers of Flint, the Michigan
    Education Association and the 3.2 million members of the
    National Education Association.
        I'm a proud product of Flint Community Schools. I taught
    elementary school for fifteen years in the Flint Public
    Schools, and I currently serve for the last six years as
    president of the United Teachers of Flint. My daughter also
    went to the Flint Public Schools, and I hope my five-year-old
    grandson will have an opportunity to go to the Flint Community
    Schools.
        Let me give you a picture of the challenges facing the
    Flint Community Schools as they work to provide students with a
    great public education they so richly deserve.
        As Mr. Solis mentioned, we have so many children in need in
    this community and many of them qualify for free lunch.
        This district is financially strapped and is currently
    running a $13 million deficit. Violence is an everyday concern
    in most of our schools. Our class sizes can average between 35
    and 38 students per class.
        We have a difficult time attracting and retaining teachers
    in our most needy schools. Given the choice, many of our young
    teachers choose to leave Flint as soon as an opportunity
    presents itself or to pursue other careers that are less
    stressful and environments which have better compensation.
        Like many urban and rural districts, Flint schools have
    gaps in access to after school programs and extended learning
    time. We have curriculum gaps, preventing students from
    accessing a rich and broad curriculum.
        Many of our schools do not have access to arts, advanced
    placement or physical education courses, nor do they have
    access to innovative curriculum such as information literacy,
    environmental education, and also financial literacy.
        We have also had significant infrastructure and school
    environment gaps that hamper learning. We have so many old
    buildings that were built at the turn of the century.
        While one of the primary purposes and goals of No Child
    Left Behind is to close the achievement gaps, this has not been
    the outcome.
        Let me read the words of a teacher from Delton, Michigan.
    And this is an example we can spread all the way across the
    state of Michigan, especially in Flint.
        ``I had a third grade student who was far below grade level
    in all subjects. She needed extra help in order to have any
    chance of keeping up with our class. I placed this child on the
    Reading Recovery teacher's list, but I was told that they could
    not accept this child into the reading class because this
    student was so far behind and that she didn't have a chance of
    catching up enough to pass the standardized test. The goal was
    not to help those who needed the help, but to help only those
    who may be able to pass a test if given a little help. Are we
    leaving students behind because of No Child Left Behind? I
    think so.''
        My colleagues and I are not afraid of accountability. We
    simply do not see the current system as fair or effective. If
    the No Child Left Behind accountability system were applied to
    other professions eventually lawyers would have to win every
    case and doctors would have to cure every patient.
        We should employ multiple measures in asserting both
    individual student learning and overall school effectiveness in
    improving student learning.
        States should be permitted to design richer, more accurate
    systems based on a wide variety of factors, including growth
    models, that should be weighed in making determinations about
    whether or not a school is high performing.
        We also need to ensure that our schools are infused with a
    21st century curriculum. How? Here are just a few ideas.
        Fund grants to states that develop 21st century content and
    authentic assessments that measure 21st century skills and
    knowledge. Reform our secondary schools so they encourage as
    many students as possible to attend college and provide course
    work to reduce dramatically the need for remediation in
    college. We have to address the dropout crisis. Estimates in
    Flint put graduation rates at below 50 percent, an unacceptable
    situation that must be remedied.
        Congress should also think broadly about how to ensure
    quality educators in every classroom. For example, reward
    states that set a reasonable minimum starting salary for
    teachers and a living wage for support professionals working in
    school districts that accept federal funds. The National
    Education Association recommends that no teacher in America
    should make less than $40,000 and no public school worker
    should make less than $25,000 or a living wage.
        We need to address working conditions by restoring a
    separate funding stream to help states reduce class sizes.
        And I see my time is up. I'm running very, very short here.
    There's just one thing I wanted to add. There's a lot of things
    here I could talk about. But as I sit in this room, in all due
    respect to what happened in Louisiana and the Gulf Coast where
    they had a hurricane, as we sit here today we're in the eye of
    a hurricane here, and it's an economic hurricane.
        And as you know, our standard of living has been--well, at
    one time Flint in the 1970s had one of the highest per capita
    incomes in the United States of America, and that would also
    apply to my colleagues in Saginaw and also Bay City.
        We've been turned upside down, and I guess what I'm telling
    you is we need a little help. This is a very, very proud
    community and a very, very proud area of the state.
        Why I bring this up is because of this situation a lot of
    things come into our schools that are very difficult to handle.
    And we have some of the best teachers in the United States. And
    they're more than just teachers. They're social workers.
    They're moms. They care for our children. And a lot of the
    problems that are coming in are a part of social issues, and it
    takes more than just one person to do that. We need a community
    as Mr. Davis talked about. But we need a little help here
    financially also with No Child Left Behind.
        We have given our tax dollars in this community, and I'm
    sure we were a donor area for a number of years because of our
    high salary, and at this time--or our high taxes that we paid
    to the federal government, and at this time we need a little
    help.
        And I thank you very much.
        [The statement of Mr. Burroughs follows:]

            Prepared Statement of Steve Burroughs, President, United
       Teachers of Flint, on Behalf of the National Education Association

        Chairman Kildee: Thank you for the opportunity to speak before the
    subcommittee today on these very important issues. I am honored to be
    able to represent the United Teachers of Flint, the Michigan Education
    Association, and the 3.2 million members of the National Education
    Association.
        I am here today to share my views, based on my personal
    experiences, on the impact of No Child Left Behind on public schools. I
    am a proud product of the Michigan school system. I have an Associate's
    degree from Mott Community College in Flint, a Bachelor's degree from
    the University of Michigan at Flint, and a Masters degree from Central
    Michigan University. I taught elementary school for 15 years in Flint
    public schools and I currently serve as president of United Teachers of
    Flint. My daughter went to Flint public schools and my five-year-old
    grandchild will soon follow in her footsteps.
        In my experience, educators enter the profession for two reasons--
    because we love children and we appreciate the importance of education
    in our society. We want all students to succeed. We show up at school
    every day to nurture children, to bring out their full potential, to be
    anchors in children's lives, and to help prepare them for the 21st
    century world that awaits them.
        To that end, we view reauthorization of the Elementary and
    Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as an opportunity for a renewed national
    discussion about public education. You, as our elected officials, have
    an opportunity to elevate this dialogue to a new level, to be bold, to
    embrace not only the call for equity in American education, but the
    demand for innovation as well. We hope that this debate will ultimately
    unite the nation as we strive to fulfill the promise of public
    education to prepare every student for success in a diverse, inter-
    dependent world.
    What Do We Want From Public Education and What Role Should the Federal
            Government Play in Achieving These Goals?
        Public education is the gateway to opportunity. All students have
    the human and civil right to a quality public education and a great
    public school that develops their potential, independence, and
    character. Public education is vital to building respect for the worth,
    dignity, and equality of every individual in our diverse society and is
    the cornerstone of our republic. Public education provides individuals
    with the skills to be involved, informed, and engaged in our
    representative democracy.
        The expertise and judgment of education professionals are critical
    to student success. Partnerships with parents, families, communities,
    and other stakeholders are also essential to quality public education
    and student success. Individuals are strengthened when they work
    together for the common good. As education professionals, we improve
    both our professional status and the quality of public education when
    we unite and advocate collectively. We maintain the highest
    professional standards, and we expect the status, compensation, and
    respect due all professionals.
    How Should We Use Accountability Systems to Remedy Educational
            Disparities?
        If we agree that public education serves multiple purposes, then we
    know there must be a richer accountability system with shared
    responsibility by stakeholders at all levels for appropriate school
    accountability. Such an accountability system must marry not only
    accountability for achievement and learning by students, but also
    shared accountability to remedy other gaps in our education system and
    flaws in the current accountability model.
    Opportunity Gaps
        Before I address achievement and skills gaps, I would like to take
    a moment to discuss the opportunity gaps that hinder so many of our
    nation's children. I see these gaps first hand every day in Flint.
        Let me give you a picture of the challenges facing the Flint public
    schools as they work to provide students with the great public
    education they so richly deserve. Some 85 to 90 percent of students in
    Flint public schools qualify for free lunch. The Flint school district
    is financially strapped and is currently running a $13 million deficit.
    Violence is an everyday concern in most of our schools. Our class sizes
    can average 35 to 38 students per class. In addition, we have a
    difficult time attracting and retaining teachers in our most needy
    schools. Given the choice, many of our young teachers choose to leave
    Flint as soon as an opportunity presents itself to pursue careers in
    less stressful environments or those with better compensation.
        Like many urban and rural school districts, Flint schools have gaps
    in access to after school programs and extended learning time programs
    and curriculum gaps preventing students from accessing a rich and broad
    curriculum. For example, many of our schools do not have access to
    arts, advanced placement, or physical education courses, nor do they
    have access to innovative curricula such as information literacy,
    environmental education, and financial literacy.
        We also have significant infrastructure and school environment gaps
    that hamper learning. A report released in May 2005 by the Citizens
    Research Council of Michigan and the Education Policy Center at
    Michigan State University, pegged the total need for repairing old
    buildings or constructing new ones at about $8.7 billion. In Michigan,
    there are schools built at the turn of the 20th century and there are
    state-of-the-art facilities where any parents would be proud to send
    their children in the 21st century. In 2004, the Saline school district
    opened an $89 million high school. The facility features 13 science
    classrooms/laboratories, a television studio, and mobile computer labs
    that can move from classroom to classroom. Students also enjoy access
    to two gyms, an eight-lane swimming pool, and other amenities for
    athletes. Meanwhile, students in Flint, Detroit, Benton Harbor, and
    many other communities can only imagine the kind of facilities that
    Saline students have.
        We simply must address these opportunity gaps if we have any hope
    of tackling achievement and skills gaps.
    Achievement and Skills Gaps
        While one of the primary purposes and goals of NCLB is to close
    achievement gaps, that has not been the outcome. My colleagues and I
    are not afraid of accountability. We simply do not see the current
    system as fair or effective. If the NCLB accountability system were
    applied to other professions, eventually lawyers would have to win
    every case and doctors would have to cure every patient. We need to
    take a hard look at the current law and design a common-sense system
    designed to raise student achievement and close achievement gaps.
        Such a system must include the following elements:
        Improved methods to assess student learning, including improving
    the quality of assessments and giving real meaning to NCLB's ``multiple
    measures'' requirement
        The term ``achievement gaps'' has become synonymous with
    differences in scores on standardized tests between groups of students.
    And, given the poor quality of tests across the country, those test
    scores reflect little more than a student's ability to regurgitate
    facts. If we are truly committed to preparing our children to compete
    in the 21st century economy and world, we need to develop and assess a
    broader set of knowledge and skills.
        NEA has been engaged for the last four or five years in a
    collaborative effort with businesses and other education groups to
    attempt to define ``21st century skills.'' The Partnership for 21st
    Century Skills has issued several reports along these lines as well as
    a set of principles for ESEA reauthorization (http://www.nea.org/esea/
    21stcenturynclb.html). These principles state in part: ``Standardized
    achievement assessments alone do not generate evidence of the skill
    sets that the business and education communities believe are necessary
    to ensure success in the 21st century.''
        We believe we should employ multiple measures in assessing both
    individual student learning and overall school effectiveness in
    improving student learning. For example, we believe a richer more
    accurate system that a state should be permitted to design could
    include statewide assessment results at 50 percent, high school
    graduation rates at 25 percent, and one other factor, such as local
    assessments, at 25 percent. Multiple measures systems would provide the
    public with a more complete picture of their local schools and their
    states' ability to provide great public schools for every child.
        Frank Burger, a high school teacher and NEA member from Grand
    Blanc, Michigan, tells NEA:
        ``For the past few years, I have taught eighth grade science. Each
    year, I have to give a test that will measure how well our school is
    doing with respect to NCLB. It does not take into account the other
    factors that could tell how well a school is achieving. One problem is
    that high-stakes testing is not the only way to measure a school's
    success. The other problem is that it feels as if teachers are now
    teaching to the test so students can pass it. Many factors should be
    used to help students achieve, not just one test.''
                Systemic supports for schools and individual supports and
                        interventions for students
        An accountability system should ensure that all subgroups of
    students are being served in a manner that will eliminate disparities
    in educational outcomes. Yet, doing so must begin with an explicit
    understanding that every child is unique and that the entire system
    should be accountable for serving each individual child's needs. The
    tension between approaches is no better illustrated than by comparing
    NCLB accountability, which is focused on student subgroup outcomes, to
    the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which uses an
    individualized approach to accountability through Individualized
    Education Plans.
        Consider the story told by Vella Trader, an elementary school
    teacher and NEA member from Delton, Michigan:
        ``I had a third grade student who was far below grade level in all
    subjects. She needed extra help in order to have any chance of keeping
    up with our class. * * * I placed this child on [the Reading Recovery
    teacher's] list, but the teacher said that she could not accept this
    child into her reading class because this student was so far behind
    that she didn't have a chance of catching up enough to pass any
    standardized test. * * * The goal was not to help those who needed the
    help, but to help only those who may be able to pass a test if given a
    little help. * * * Are we leaving students behind because of ESEA? I
    think so!''
        In order to close achievement and skills gaps between groups of
    children, we must acknowledge the need for two simultaneous approaches:
    changes in the way we provide supports and interventions to the school
    and changes in the way we provide supports and interventions to
    individual students who need help. NEA's Positive Agenda for the ESEA
    Reauthorization (http://www.nea.org/esea/posagendaexecsum.html) sets
    forth a variety of supports we hope will be included in the next
    reauthorization of ESEA.
    What Other Roles Can the Federal Government Play in Ensuring a Great
            Public School for Every Child?
                Innovation and graduation for all
        In addition to accountability for student learning, the federal
    government should focus on less tangible, but no less important,
    differences in the development of students as well-rounded individuals
    prepared for life after high school graduation. Our schools need to
    reflect the world in which our children live: a world infused with a
    21st century curriculum. They need to help students become well-rounded
    individuals with skills to compete in a changing world and contribute
    to the rich, diverse societal fabric that makes our country so
    impressive. Ultimately, an educational experience that is more relevant
    to a student is going to be more engaging and will lead to greater
    knowledge and skills. A rich, relevant, and challenging experience can
    help address all students' needs. It can captivate and challenge our
    gifted students, while also providing a positive influence for students
    at risk of dropping out or engaging in high-risk behaviors.
        As NEA member Terese Fitzpatrick, a middle school teacher from
    Howell, Michigan, has told NEA:
        ``I spend more time testing than I ever have, which means that
    students spend less time on learning tasks. * * * I'm testing all
    students with the same test as there is no distinction between kids or
    ability levels. I'm teaching to a limited number of benchmarks because
    that is what is on the test. Students get no time to pick out interest
    areas; students are never given the time to prove their knowledge
    through creative, self-chosen projects. So, does their education and
    testing truly reflect the kinds of tasks that will be required of them
    as adults? Are they being allowed to do the kinds of projects that will
    truly pique their interest and thus increase their motivation to learn?
    Schools are moving in the wrong direction.''
        All of our schools, particularly high schools, should encourage as
    many students as possible to attend college and should provide
    coursework to reduce dramatically the need for remediation in college.
    At the same time, we also must acknowledge the continued need for a
    major investment in career and technical education programs. And, we
    need to ensure that high schools take into consideration the transition
    needs of all student populations, not just students with disabilities.
    In other words, we need to do whatever it takes to ensure that a
    student's next step after high school will be one he or she takes with
    the confidence that comes from being well-prepared.
        Finally, we urge Congress to adopt a ``graduation for all''
    proposal that combines the work of Representative Hinojosa and Senators
    Bingaman and Murray with NEA's 12-point action plan to address the
    dropout crisis in America (http://www.nea.org/presscenter/
    actionplan1.html). Estimates put Flint's graduation rate at below 50
    percent--an unacceptable situation that must be remedied.
        We believe Congress should provide funding for grants to states
    that agree to eliminate the concept of ``dropping out'' of school or
    that raise the compulsory attendance age. We need graduation centers
    for 19- and 20-year-olds and those who have dropped out of school--a
    concerted effort to prevent the loss of one more child and to help
    those who already have dropped out. This is not only in America's self-
    interest to ensure future competitiveness, it is a moral imperative.
                Quality educators in every classroom
        NEA's Positive Agenda includes a number of proposals to ensure the
    highest quality educators. Beyond these proposals, we encourage
    Congress to think broadly about this important issue. For example, we
    believe Congress should reward states that set a reasonable minimum
    starting salary for teachers and a living wage for support
    professionals working in school districts that accept federal funds. We
    have asked our nation's educators to take on the most important
    challenge in ensuring America's future. Yet, we have denied these
    educators economic security and respect. It is time to end this
    untenable situation. Congress must take a bold step and set that
    minimum standard.
        NEA would recommend that no teacher in America should make less
    than $40,000 and no public school worker should make less than $25,000
    or a living wage. According to a recent study by the National
    Association of Colleges and Employers, the teaching profession has an
    average national starting salary of $30,377. Meanwhile, computer
    programmers start at an average of $43,635, public accounting
    professionals at $44,668, and registered nurses at $45,570.\1\ Even
    more shocking is that the average salary for full-time
    paraprofessionals is only $26,313, with a wide salary range across job
    duties. NEA has education support professional members who live in
    shelters, others who work two and three jobs to get by, and others who
    receive food stamps. This is an unacceptable and embarrassing way to
    treat public servants who educate, nurture, and inspire our children. I
    would encourage you to read their stories.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ A recent report from the NEA Research Department (Teacher Pay
    1940--2000: Losing Ground, Losing Status), based on U.S. census data,
    finds that annual pay for teachers has fallen sharply over the past 60
    years in relation to the annual pay of other workers with college
    degrees. The report states: ``Throughout the nation, the average
    earnings of workers with at least four years of college are now over 50
    percent higher than the average earnings of a teacher.'' Furthermore,
    an analysis of weekly wage trends by researchers at the Economic Policy
    Institute (EPI) shows that teachers' wages have fallen behind those of
    other workers since 1996, with teachers' inflation-adjusted weekly
    wages rising just 0.8 percent, far less than the 12 percent weekly wage
    growth of other college graduates and of all workers. Further, a
    comparison of teachers' weekly wages to those of other workers with
    similar education and experience shows that, since 1993, female teacher
    wages have fallen behind 13 percent and male teacher wages 12.5 percent
    (11.5 percent among all teachers). Since 1979, teacher wages relative
    to those of other similar workers have dropped 18.5 percent among
    women, 9.3 percent among men, and 13.1 percent among both combined.
        \2\ ``Why Money Matters,'' NEA Today, November 2006, http://
    www.nea.org/neatoday/0611/feature3.html and http://www.nea.org/pay/
    index.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We also urge Congress to advance teacher quality at the highest
    poverty schools by providing $10,000 federal salary supplements to
    National Board Certified Teachers. Congress also should fund grants to
    help teachers in high poverty schools pay the fees and access
    professional development supports to become National Board Certified
    Teachers. In addition, you should consider other financial incentives
    to attract and retain quality teachers in hard-to-staff schools
    including financial bonuses, college student loan forgiveness, and
    housing subsidies.
        Finally, we believe that the equitable distribution of highly
    qualified teachers depends not just on decent wages, but more
    importantly upon the teaching and learning conditions in each school.
    In Flint, our extreme financial situation has made it impossible to
    reduce class sizes. Therefore, we strongly encourage Congress to
    restore a separate funding stream to help states reduce class sizes. We
    believe that ensuring the greatest possible individualized attention
    for each student should be as high a priority as ensuring that each
    student achieves at a certain level. In fact, the two goals are
    inextricably linked, as research clearly shows the positive impact of
    small class size on student learning.
    Specific Changes to No Child Left Behind
        My testimony today has focused primarily on the big picture--the
    ideals and principles that should guide debate on the federal role in
    education and should frame the context for NCLB reauthorization. If,
    however, Congress should approach reauthorization by looking to tweak
    the law rather than consider broader policy changes, we would offer the
    following suggestions, which are of utmost concern to NEA's members:
        1. Allow states to use a ``growth model'' as part of the AYP
    definition (provided that state data systems are equipped with
    individual student identifiers) to track and give credit for student
    growth over time.
        2. Clarify the language about assessments. Tests should be used for
    diagnostic purposes and educators should receive results in a timely
    manner to inform instructional strategies. Overall, assessment language
    should require a much more comprehensive look at the quality of
    assessments for all student populations and their true alignment with
    state content standards.
        3. Encourage 21st century assessment that is web-based and provides
    timely results useful to teachers, parents, and students. Such
    assessments should be accessible to all student populations.
        4. Replace current accountability labels (``in need of
    improvement,'' ``corrective action,'' and ``restructuring'') with a
    system that rewards success in closing achievement gaps and focuses on
    helping schools. Semantics and policies should reflect the goal of
    targeting help where it is needed most. Therefore, schools in need of
    additional supports and interventions should be classified as: priority
    schools, high priority schools, and highest priority schools.
        5. Mandate multiple measures in the AYP system. Current multiple
    measure language is not enforced in a way that gives schools and
    districts credit for success on factors other than state standardized
    assessments, including such measures as school district and school
    assessments, attendance, graduation and drop-out rates, and the percent
    of students who take honors, AP, IB, or other advanced courses.
        6. Extend from one year to a maximum of three years the time for
    newly arrived English Language Learners to master English before being
    tested in English in core content areas. This change would be
    consistent with research findings about the average pace for English
    language acquisition. Students who become proficient in English in
    fewer than three years should be tested in English. However, to expect
    a non-English speaker to take a math or reading test in a second
    language prior to achieving proficiency in that language sets that
    student up for failure. At the same time, Congress should exert
    pressure on the system to provide valid and reliable native language
    assessments, and should provide the necessary resources to ensure their
    availability.
        7. Include students with disabilities in any accountability system,
    but allow states to use grade level appropriate authentic assessment
    for special education students based on their IEPs. Under IDEA '04, IEP
    teams are required to ensure that IEPs are aligned with state content
    standards and state achievement standards. Teams are also required to
    set annual measurable objectives for students with disabilities, so
    that growth in their learning is not only expected, but required.
        8. Provide a separate funding stream for and target public school
    choice and supplemental services to those students who are not reaching
    proficiency in reading and math.
        9. Improve the quality and oversight of supplemental services to
    ensure they meet the same standards as public schools.
        10. Close two loopholes in the highly qualified teacher definition.
    NCLB itself exempts some teachers in charter schools from having to be
    fully licensed or certified. The Department of Education's regulations
    allow individuals going through alternate route to certification
    programs to be considered highly qualified for up to three years before
    completing their program. Each of these exemptions should be
    eliminated.
        I thank you again for the opportunity to speak with the
    subcommittee today and would be pleased to answer any questions.
                                     ______

        Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Burroughs.
        Miss Debardelaben.

                STATEMENT OF ANDREA DEBARDELABEN, PARENT

        Ms. Debardelaben. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Davis, I wish to thank
    the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf
    of nearly 85,000 members of the Michigan state PTA and 5.5
    million PTA members nationwide. I am glad to see Congress
    working so hard for our children.
        My name is Andrea Debardelaben. I am a member of the
    Michigan PTA. I have been a member of the PTA for about eight
    years. I have been a day-care provider for about five years.
        I have three children of my own, two boys, a first and
    fifth grader that attend Longfellow Elementary, and a daughter
    that attends SASA, Saginaw Arts and Science Academy.
        Mr. Chairman, parent involvement in a child's education is
    a major factor in determining success in schools. Successful
    parental involvement strategies vary from region to region,
    school to school, parent to parent. However, it is important
    that Congress find ways to help provide parents more
    opportunity to get involved.
        As you begin work on the upcoming reauthorization of the No
    Child Left Behind Act I ask that you pay special attention to
    the roles parents and our local communities have in trying to
    improvement the academic achievement of all students.
        As a member of the Michigan PTA and a strong advocate for
    our children I have firsthand knowledge of the importance of
    parent involvement. Moving beyond the normal definition of
    involvement has been key to helping many schools across
    Michigan. Still, there is much work left to do.
        The state of Michigan has the third worst economy in the
    entire United States. What makes the statistics more staggering
    is the two states ranked below Michigan have been devastated by
    hurricanes which were the immediate cause for their setback.
    Not surprising, a lot of the reasons for Michigan's poor
    economic status has to do with its education system.
        Years back Michigan was a thriving blue collar state.
    Manufacturing jobs flourished and a person with a high school
    education could make a decent living. That is no longer the
    case. With jobs leaving the state, Michigan is having a tough
    time filling the void and changing the mind-set of the
    importance of a good education.
        So how exactly has No Child Left Behind affected Michigan's
    schools, and more specifically has it helped improve parent
    involvement statewide? From PTA's perspective we have seen some
    successes and some failures. No Child Left Behind has done a
    good job in trying to get more parents to care about their
    child's education. This will hopefully help turn around our
    education systems to provide an education which provides the
    skills and knowledge needed for children to succeed in a new,
    invigorated economy.
        Michigan PTA believes that parent engagement starts at the
    very beginning. As the owner of a day-care center I can tell
    you we work very hard in preparing young children to be ready
    for school. At a young age we are trying to instill upon them
    the skills which they need to build a solid foundation for
    their education. A strong part of this preparation begins at
    home. Trying to get parents involved in what their children are
    learning is very important. I am proud to say that many of the
    practices we are using help kids and parents alike.
        One of the biggest roadblocks I have found in trying to get
    parents more involved in their school is their work schedule.
    Parents work an awful lot and find it difficult to take time
    off to support the child's learning. Parents always want to be
    there for their child; however, a lot of decisions are made for
    them by their long work hours and commute times. I am
    encouraged by the actions teachers are making in my child's
    school. Many will take meetings during lunch or make other
    arrangements to accommodate a parent's schedule. However, these
    meetings still do not provide the parent or teacher enough time
    to cover every concern and aspect of the child's education.
        On a personal note, I would like to tell you a story about
    my child. This story, I believe, highlights an intrinsic flaw
    in No Child Left Behind, one that I hope reauthorization will
    help fix.
        My child attends an elementary school that just has in the
    past couple of years achieved Adequate Yearly Progress. I wish
    to compliment the leadership of my child's school in turning
    around the school and truly making a difference in many of the
    students' lives.
        My son, however, is a unique case. He has a very tough time
    at school. I cannot tell you how hard he tries. There are
    certain courses which just give him trouble and he needs some
    extra help in these subjects. The resources to help my son used
    to exist at his school. No Child Left Behind mandated that
    since the school didn't make AYP supplemental education
    services must be provided to help those students who needed
    more attention. Obviously, the SES services helped the school
    improve. Yet in achieving AYP the school no longer offers these
    important services, services that my son needs to be
    successful.
        Although the law passed five years ago, many children are
    still left behind. And the irony is that many of these students
    are coming from schools that are found to be achieving
    academically.
        I would ask the committee to move beyond how the overall
    school is doing and pay more attention to the individual
    student. By identifying those students who need the most help,
    bringing their parents into the classroom and tracking their
    progress throughout their education career we can truly begin
    to make a difference in Michigan's education system.
        Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I thank you for
    this chance to speak on behalf of the parents and children of
    Michigan and PTAs across the nation. I believe your efforts to
    improve the law can help provide a better education for every
    child and allow our children to be more competitive in the
    worldwide market. Parents and community involvement must be
    viewed as part of the solution.
        People in every community across the country are trying to
    increase parent involvement. If this committee can help provide
    these partnerships with more resources and more flexibility,
    innovative solutions will emerge and our children's academic
    achievement will rise.
        Thank you for this opportunity. I look forward to further
    discussions on this important issue.
        [The statement of Ms. Debardelaben follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Andrea Debardelaben, Parent

        Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the Committee for giving me this
    opportunity to speak on behalf of the nearly eighty five thousand
    members of the Michigan State PTA and the 5.5 million PTA members
    nationwide. I am glad to see Congress working so hard for our children.
        My name is Andrea Debardelaben and I am a member of the Michigan
    PTA. I have been a member of the PTA for about 8 years. I have been a
    daycare provider for about 5 years. I have 3 children of my own--2
    boys, 1st and 5th graders that attend Longfellow Elementary and a
    daughter that attends Saginaw Arts and Science Academy.
        Mr. Chairman, numerous studies have documented that regardless of
    the economic, ethnic, or cultural background of the family, parent
    involvement in a child's education is a major factor in determining
    success in school. Successful parental involvement strategies vary from
    region to region, school-to-school, parent to parent. However, it is
    important that Congress find ways to help provide parents more
    opportunities to get involved. As you begin work on the upcoming
    reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act I ask that you pay
    special attention to the role parents and our local communities have in
    trying to improve the academic achievement of all students.
        As a member of the Michigan PTA and a strong advocate for our
    children, I have first hand knowledge of the importance of parent
    involvement. Moving beyond the normal definition of involvement has
    been key to helping many schools across Michigan. Still, there is much
    work left to do.
        The state of Michigan has the 3rd worst economy in the entire
    United States. What makes this statistic even more staggering is the
    two states ranked below Michigan have been devastated by hurricanes
    which were the immediate cause for their setback. Not surprising, a lot
    of the reason for Michigan's poor economic status has to do with its
    education system.
        Years back, Michigan was a thriving blue collar state.
    Manufacturing jobs flourished and a person with a high school education
    could make a decent living. That is no longer the case. With jobs
    leaving the state, Michigan is having a tough time filling the void and
    changing the mindset of the importance of a good education.
        So how exactly has No Child Left Behind affected Michigan's schools
    and more specifically has it helped improve parent involvement state-
    wide? From PTA's perspective we have seen some successes and some
    failures. No Child Left Behind has done a good job in trying to get
    more parents to care about their child's education. This will hopefully
    help turn around our education system to provide an education which
    provides the skills and knowledge needed for children to succeed in a
    new, invigorated economy.
        Michigan PTA believes that parent engagement starts at the very
    beginning. As the owner of a daycare center I can tell you we work very
    hard in preparing young children to be ready for school. At a young age
    we are trying to instill upon them the skills which they will need to
    build a solid foundation for their education. A strong part of this
    preparation begins at home. Trying to get parents involved in what
    their children are learning is very important. I am proud to say that
    many of the practices we use are helping kids and parents alike.
        One of the biggest roadblocks I have found in trying to get parents
    more involved is their work schedule. Parents work an awful lot and
    find it difficult to take time off to help support their child's
    learning. Parents always want to be there for their child; however a
    lot of this decision is made for them by their long work hours and
    commute times. I am encouraged by the actions teachers are making in my
    child's school. Many will take meetings during lunch time or make other
    arrangements to accommodate a parent's schedule. However, these
    meetings still do not provide the parent or teacher enough time to
    cover every concern and aspect of the child's education.
        On a personal note, I would like to tell you a story about my own
    child. This story I believe highlights an intrinsic flaw in No Child
    Left Behind, one that I hope the reauthorization will help fix.
        My child attends an elementary school that just has achieved
    Adequate Yearly Progress for the first time. I wish to compliment the
    leadership of my child's school in turning around the school and truly
    making a difference in many of the students' lives.
        My son however is a unique case. He has a very tough time at
    school. I cannot tell you how hard he tries. There are certain courses
    which just give him trouble, and he needs some extra help in these
    subjects. The resources to help my son used to exist in his school. No
    Child Left Behind mandated that since the school didn't make AYP,
    Supplemental Education Services must be provided to help those kids who
    needed more attention. Obviously the SES services helped the school
    improve. Yet in achieving AYP, the school no longer offers these
    important services, services that my son needs to be successful.
        Although the law passed 5 years ago, many children are still being
    left behind. And the irony is that many of these students are coming
    from schools that are found to be achieving academically. I would ask
    the Committee to move beyond how the overall school is doing and pay
    more attention to the individual student. By identifying those students
    who need the most help, bringing their parents into the classroom, and
    tracking their progress throughout their education career, we can truly
    begin to make a difference in Michigan's education system.
        Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I thank you for this chance
    to speak on behalf of the parents and children of Michigan and PTAs
    across the nation. I believe your efforts to improve the law can help
    provide a better education for every child and allow our children to be
    more competitive in a world-wide marketplace. Parent and community
    involvement must be viewed as part of the solution.
        People in every community across the country are trying to increase
    parent involvement. If this Committee can help provide these
    partnerships with more resources and more flexibility, innovative
    solutions will emerge and our children's academic achievement will
    rise. Thank you again for this opportunity. I look forward to further
    discussions on this important issue.
                                     ______

        Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Miss Debardelaben.
        Mr. Tilley.

       STATEMENT OF DON TILLEY, SOCIAL STUDIES DEPARTMENT CHAIR,
                          CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL

        Mr. Tilley. Chairman Kildee and Congressman Davis, I would
    like to first of all thank you for allowing me this great
    honor.
        A father to four children I not only educate at work, but
    also at home.
        Since the inception of No Child Left Behind in 2002
    education has gone through major changes, some good, some not
    so good. I would like to right the wrongs and build upon what
    is working.
        First and foremost is funding. Mandates, resolutions and
    laws that are not supported by all the funds needed to
    implement them cannot and do not work. When I say supported by
    funds, that is not to imply a carrot and stick approach.
        For example, if classroom sizes are to be smaller under
    this act then the funds should be allotted to allow schools to
    hire professional educators and support staff at professional
    salaries to give each and every child the best possible
    education. I do not believe this is asking too much.
        Teachers in our district are not getting rich at the
    expense of anyone. In fact, they're paying for their health
    insurance benefits, and have been over the years by giving up
    increases in salaries and have not had a pay increase in nearly
    two years, let alone keeping up with the rate of inflation. I
    do not believe that anyone in this room or watching out there
    looks forward or strives to make less money next year than they
    did in the previous.
        Michigan was authorized to receive approximately $758
    million in Title I funding in fiscal year 2006 but received
    only $427 million. That shortfall comes at the expense of
    educators and support staff. We are a service industry. The
    greatest portion of our funds goes directly to providing
    education. Less funds, less opportunities for children, less
    chance of schools complying with the requirements of NCLB and
    meeting Adequate Yearly Progress.
        Secondly, No Child Left Behind, from my perspective,
    implies that no child is to be left behind. Implementation of
    AYP should not penalize children or schools, it should support
    them.
        As a teacher in a failing school due to a subgroup not
    having enough children take the state assessment I have seen
    firsthand what a blanket law can do to a school. Public schools
    cannot control the raw material or children who walk through
    their doors. Unlike a business we cannot turn away a child of
    any ability or lack thereof, and if a school does so, shame on
    them.
        If progress is a mandatory measurement then schools should
    be at the very least measured against themselves. By marking a
    school as failing communities are earmarked as failing,
    therefore not having or severely limiting the ability to
    attract new businesses and residents. The schools are then
    doubly punished as they will lose children and therefore
    resources. Schools that acquire students turned away often
    increase class sizes to accommodate the new students, thereby
    hurting another child's ability to acquire more individual
    assistance.
        When it comes to being highly qualified, NCLB has done a
    disservice to many students. Teachers who were more than
    qualified were forced to leave their positions and take
    positions in either retirement or under some other
    qualification umbrella. I encourage the committee to reform the
    HOUSSE process to make it easier for good teachers like some of
    my former colleagues to continue in their field.
        Furthermore, I am an individual who strives to achieve
    goals in my life. However, I am also a realist when it comes to
    these expectations. I will never play in the NBA. I can
    guarantee it. I was not blessed with the ability to put the
    ball in the net consistently, if at all. I was not born seven
    feet tall. I can live with that.
        I do, however, have a goal that each and every day I walk
    into the classroom I will put forth my best effort and
    recognize the abilities of each and every one of my students. I
    strive to give them the best education possible. I do not set
    any of my students up for failure.
        However, NCLB is doing just that. By setting goals that 100
    percent of students will be proficient in math and reading by
    2014 schools are set up for failure. Therefore, the students
    that attend those schools will be set up for failure. It is
    likely the schools not meeting this requirement will be
    penalized instead of rewarded for the progress they have made.
        Constant pressures to test our students more and more
    frequently consistently takes away from precious classroom
    time. Students learn by doing. Testing is often a necessary
    measure to obtain the cognitive information and abilities
    students have acquired; however, so is common sense. The
    greatest test of ability in each and every child's life will be
    just that, life. But not everyone will be afforded the same
    opportunities, so that test is flawed.
        Education must service all students regardless of social,
    economic or academic status or capabilities. No Child Left
    Behind needs to recognize this, not only in the form of
    individualized educational plans but by creating and funding
    programs for preschool children, ones similar to Early On and
    Head Start programs; programs for children that are need based
    due to a variety of social or economic pressures; programs for
    elementary school children before and after school. These
    programs should include staff and resources capable of
    providing true counseling services to children in need, whether
    the need be psychological, emotional, medicinal, sustenance or
    a result of neglect.
        Many children need these programs. They do not have a
    choice to walk out of a home where there is physical, emotional
    or neglectful abuse. While as a society we do not have the
    capabilities or resources to likely change the present culture,
    we can do our part to break this cycle. Teach children of pride
    and belonging throughout the educational process. No Child Left
    Behind can continue this positive direction by ensuring that
    courses in self-esteem and self-awareness are taught to the
    middle and high school.
        We as adults tend to push our children towards goals they
    may or may not achieve but often overlook what's really going
    on. Our children are constantly driven to measurement, but
    oftentimes are so consumed by their own physiological and
    emotional development they lose focus on those mandated goals.
    If children were educated on what their bodies, minds and
    emotions were going through, and that they were not alone, and
    that they were going to be all right, I am a firm believer that
    students would be better able to focus on the academics at
    hand, thereby developing stronger self-esteem and the
    capability of understanding.
        The United States has always been an academic leader. The
    results are obvious. They are sitting and working all around
    us. A focus on testing and more testing, modeling academics of
    the elite in China, who I understand are still a larger number
    than all of the people in the United States, is not where we
    have found our past nor where we shall find our future. We need
    to continue to be leaders in this world and not followers. We
    need to set precedents. We must strive not to forget the
    language in the Nation At Risk report some twenty years ago.
        Yes, we must strive for a more intelligent and forward-
    thinking society, but we must also develop the skills and
    ethics in every child. We cannot push so hard on the academic
    elite that it comes at the expense of our talented and skilled
    in many other parts of our society. We also need auto
    mechanics, welders, contractors, painters, musicians,
    sculptors, graphic designers, software developers and whatever
    other future generational skill our students may offer. No
    Child Left Behind cannot forget that, and it must ensure that
    all students, regardless of academic ability, are given the
    opportunities to continue to develop and nurture those skills
    that make each and every one of us unique. Our future will not
    come cheaply, yet it is an investment we can ill afford not to
    make.
        Thank you.
        [The statement of Mr. Tilley follows:]

              Prepared Statement of Donald Tilley, Social Studies
                     Department Chair, Central High School

        Chairman Kildee and Members of the Subcommittee, I would first of
    all like to thank you for allowing me this great honor.
        I started teaching in 1991 at All Saints Central High School in Bay
    City, Michigan. After five successful years, opportunities began to
    present themselves and in 1996, I accepted an offer to begin teaching
    in the Bay City Public Schools, where I remain today. As a high school
    social studies teacher, and a product of the same school system in
    which I teach today, I have seen many changes in education. As you may
    or may not know, I am a hard working, forward thinking, and self-
    motivated individual. A father to four children, ages ranging from 4
    (she will begin kindergarten this fall) to 15, I not only educate at
    work, but also at home. I hope to instill the same qualities and work
    ethic I have developed over my lifetime to not only the children I
    teach, but to my own.
        Since the inception of No Child Left Behind in 2002, education has
    gone through major changes. Some good and some not so good. As I stated
    before, I am forward thinking and would like to right the wrongs and
    build upon what is working.
        First and foremost is funding. Mandates, resolutions and laws that
    are not supported by all of the funds needed to implement them, cannot
    and do not work. When I say supported by funds, that is not to imply a
    carrot and stick approach. For example, if classroom sizes are to be
    smaller under this act (as they should be), then the funds should be
    allotted to allow schools to hire professional educators and support
    staff at professional salaries to give each and every child the best
    possible education. I do not believe this is asking too much. Teachers
    in our district are not getting rich at the expense of anyone, in fact
    they are paying for health insurance benefits, and have been over the
    years by giving up increases in salaries, and have not had a pay
    increase in nearly two years, let alone keeping up with the rate of
    inflation. I do not believe that anyone in this room or watching out
    there looks forward to or strives to make less money next year than
    they did in the previous.
        Correct me if I'm wrong, but Michigan was authorized to receive
    approximately $758 million in Title I funding for FY 2006, but only
    received $427 million. That is a funding shortfall of about $331
    million. That shortfall comes at the expense of educators and support
    staff. We are a service industry. The greatest portion of our funds
    goes directly to providing an education. Less funds, less opportunities
    for children, less chance of schools complying with the requirements of
    NCLB and meeting Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).
        Secondly, No Child Left Behind, from my perspective implies that NO
    CHILD is to be left behind. Implementation of AYP should not penalize
    children or schools, it should support them. As a teacher in a failing
    school, due to a sub group not having enough children take the State
    Assessment, I have seen first hand what such a blanket law can do to a
    school. Failure to achieve one of approximately 30 requirements to meet
    AYP denies that school AYP. School districts cannot control cultures.
    They can however, shape them. Public schools cannot control the raw
    material, or children, who walk through their doors. Unlike a business,
    we cannot turn away a child of any ability or lack thereof, and if a
    school does so, shame on them. If progress is a mandatory measurement,
    then schools should be at the very least measured against themselves.
    By marking a school as failing, communities are earmarked as failing,
    therefore, not having or severely limiting the ability to attract new
    businesses and new residents. The schools are then doubly punished as
    they will lose children and therefore resources. Schools that acquire
    the students turned away, often increase class sizes to accommodate the
    new students, thereby hurting another child's ability to acquire more
    individual assistance.
        When it comes to being highly qualified, NCLB has done a disservice
    to many students. Teachers who were more than qualified were forced to
    leave their positions and take positions in either retirement or under
    some other qualification umbrella. One prime example I can give was an
    outstanding math teacher once working down the hall from me. She had 30
    years of service and was one of the best math teachers I have ever
    witnessed in action. She was a dedicated, hard working, student
    advocate and she knew her subject. Because of her Physical Education
    major and only a minor in the math field, and regardless of her
    accomplishments within the classroom and the students who walked
    through her door, at 30 plus years she was forced into retirement. Who
    benefited here? While we cannot change what has been done, the future
    of NCLB needs to consider the accomplishments, credibility, and talents
    of those who are successful in the field. While a simple grandfather
    clause could have saved many outstanding educators across this great
    country, NCLB must consider some form of credit or reward for years of
    successful experience in the classroom. I encourage the Committee to
    reform the HOUSSE process to make it easier for good teachers like my
    former colleague to continue in their field.
        Furthermore, I am an individual who strives to achieve goals in my
    life. However, I am also a realist when it comes to those expectations.
    I will not ever play in the NBA. I can guarantee it. I was not blessed
    with the ability to put the ball in the net consistently (if at all). I
    was not born 7 feet tall. I can live with that. I do however have a
    goal that each and every day I walk into the classroom I will put forth
    my best effort and recognize the abilities of each and everyone of my
    students. I strive to give them the best education possible. I do not
    set any of my students up for failure. Everyone matters.
        However, NCLB is doing just that. By setting goals that 100% of
    students will be proficient in math and reading by 2014 schools are set
    up for failure. Therefore, the students that attend those schools will
    be set up for failure. It is likely that schools not meeting this
    requirement will be penalized, instead of rewarded for the progress
    they have made. Constant pressures to test, test and test our students
    more and more frequently consistently takes away from precious
    classroom time. Students learn by doing. Some mandated tests such as
    ELA and Math Proficiency Equivalents can take up to as long as two
    weeks to administer. That time lost in the classroom impacts state
    assessment tests given later in the year. Those test results again come
    back to AYP and failing schools. Testing is often a necessary measure
    to obtain the cognitive information and abilities students have
    acquired. However, so is common sense. The greatest test of ability in
    each an every child's life will be just that--life. But not everyone
    will be afforded the same opportunities, so even that test is flawed.
        Education must service all students regardless of socio, economic,
    or academic status or capabilities. No Child Left Behind needs to
    recognize this, not only in the form of Individualized Educational
    Plans, but by creating and funding programs for pre-school children.
    Ones similar to the Early On and Head Start programs. Programs for
    children that are need based, due to a variety to socio or economic
    pressures. Programs for elementary school children before and after
    school. These programs should include staff and resources capable of
    providing true counseling services to children in need. Whether the
    need be psychological, emotional, medicinal, sustenance or as a result
    of neglect. As I stated before, we cannot change a culture, but we can
    impact children. Many children need these programs. They do not have a
    choice to walk out of a home where there is physical, emotional, or
    neglectful abuse. While as a society we do not have the capabilities or
    resources to likely change the present culture, we can do our part to
    change the children. To deliver the educational and social
    opportunities that can break the cycle. Teach children of pride and
    belonging throughout the educational process. No Child Left Behind can
    continue in this positive direction by ensuring that courses in Self-
    Esteem and Self-Awareness are taught throughout middle and high school.
    We as adults tend to push our children toward goals they may or may not
    achieve, but often overlook what is really going on. Our children are
    constantly driven to measurement, but often times are so consumed by
    their own physiological and emotional development, they lose focus on
    those mandated goals. If children were educated on what their bodies,
    minds and emotions were going through, and that they were not alone,
    and were going to be alright, I am a firm believer that students would
    be better able to focus on the academics at hand, thereby developing
    stronger self esteem and the capability of understanding.
        The United States has always been an academic leader. The results
    are obvious. They are sitting and working all around us. A focus on
    testing and more testing, modeling the academics of the elite in China,
    who I understand are still a larger number than all of the people of
    the United States, is not where we have found our past, nor where we
    shall find our future. We need to continue to be leaders in this world
    and not the followers. We need to set precedence. We must not forget
    the language in the Nation at Risk report some twenty years ago. Yes,
    we must strive for a more intelligent and forward thinking society, but
    we must also develop the skills and ethics in every child. We cannot
    push so hard on the academic elite that it comes at the expense of our
    talented and skilled in all other parts of our society. We need auto
    mechanics, welders, builders, contractors, architects, seamstresses,
    painters, musicians, sculptors, graphic designers, software developers,
    and whatever other future generational skill our students may offer. No
    Child Left Behind cannot forget that. It must ensure that all students,
    regardless of academic ability, are given the opportunities to continue
    to develop and nurture those skills that make each and every one of us
    unique. Our future will not come cheaply, yet it is an investment we
    can ill afford not to make.
                                     ______

        Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Tilley. Thank you very much.
        I thank all of you for your testimony, and now we'll start
    asking some questions here. So I recognize myself now for five
    minutes, and I'll try to watch the light there.
        As I said in the beginning, we're probably going to keep in
    place the basic structure of No Child Left Behind. Nothing is
    certain in Washington, but the standards, the testing, the
    Adequate Yearly Progress and the effects or consequences, some
    of you use the word penalty, but I use the word effects.
        In those four elements are there any changes any of you
    think of where we could improve the bill? Are any of those too
    onerous, not strong enough, standards, testing, AYP?
        And in that I'll throw in this question also. Some teachers
    tell us, and some superintendents and principals, that we're
    spending too much time in testing. So if you could address
    those four elements or one of those four elements in the
    testing, starting with Mr. Solis.
        Mr. Solis. In terms of Adequate Yearly Progress, it doesn't
    take into account when you take a snapshot on an annual basis,
    it doesn't demonstrate any growth. And I think there's a real
    need for growth models to be accepted and allowed within the
    new legislation. Because I think teachers work very hard,
    administrators work very hard in terms of ensuring that our
    children are going more than one year, because they're
    further--they're behind more than one year. But even though
    they are growing at a pace faster than they would learn in a
    single year, they're still penalized if they don't meet that
    one test that they take that year. And if children are behind
    three years and they've made a year and a half worth of growth,
    the test will not indicate that. So I think growth models are
    very important.
        And once again, teachers as well as administrative support
    staff work diligently to ensure that the children are growing
    faster than what they would grow in a normal year.
        Mr. Kildee. Any other comments? Anything else on the AYP or
    any of the elements?
        Mr. Russell. Well, you know, just to address those programs
    that serve students with severe disabilities, I think the
    notion that standards are something that's so easily measured
    we have a tendency to measure those things that are easy to
    measure.
        I would suggest that for many students, not just students
    with severe disabilities, we look at individual growth over
    time. And it's a different application of the growth model, but
    we want--and we are accountable as well, but I think we've got
    to have a special system of accountability for very special
    schools, and also I think other students with disabilities as
    well.
        Mr. Kildee. Anyone else? Mr. Burroughs?
        Mr. Burroughs. Yes, I would have to concur with my two
    colleagues here to my right. A lot of the standardized tests
    are basically just a snapshot of what's going on in a child's
    life. But you mentioned a lot of teachers have told you about
    the amount of time wasted with numerous tests, and that is
    correct.
        But also I think you have to experience sometimes some of
    my elementary teachers as early as fourth and third grade. We
    benchmark our children so much because we're testing just so
    much, you see children actually cry. ``We're going to take
    another test.'' And what we have done as educators, now we're
    teaching towards a test. We've taken out the richness of
    education.
        But I want to concur with Mr. Russell. A lot of times when
    we deal with special ed children we have individual education
    plans. I think every child ought to have an individual
    education plan. Every child is unique, and every child learns
    at different rates. With a standardized test we're saying all
    children at such and such an age ought to be having these
    skills here. And that's just not realistic. Every child is
    unique and they should have an individual education plan.
        Thank you.
        Ms. Debardelaben. Yes, I can speak as a parent of a child
    that needs special education, but because their school met AYP
    he cannot get the services. He's still way below where he
    should be. He was a child that has been left--he repeated a
    grade already. But if you look at his testing you would think
    that he's not making any progress, and he really is. He just
    learns slower, at a slower rate.
        So I do think that the tests aren't showing that these
    children are learning, but just because Billy over here can't
    learn as fast as this young lady over here he's being penalized
    for that, and I don't agree with that.
        Mr. Kildee. Mr. Tilley?
        Mr. Tilley. I concur with the rest of the folks at the
    table here.
        And the more tests that are mandated the more time we're
    taking out of the classroom. For instance, we just took the
    State of Michigan's ACT at the high school level, the ACT and
    the MME test. Children with special needs were given or were
    mandated another four days to take that test. So they were
    literally out of the classroom for a week. And the teachers who
    were administering those tests also had to be out for that
    week, so the rest of the kids in their classroom were losing,
    because there was a whole week's worth of education they lost.
    We're coming down to minutes and hours as far as our year goes.
    Those are minutes and hours that are precious to those kids.
        And every time they're given another test, like some of the
    ELA tests and the math proficiency tests, they're taken out of
    the classroom which then will affect, adversely affect their
    results on the state test.
        So testing has become a major issue in the schools that
    seriously needs to be looked at.
        Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much. I now recognize the
    gentleman from Illinois.
        Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And let me
    just thank each one of you for your testimony.
        As a matter of fact, listening to you generates a lot of
    thought. In my mind it sort of causes me to feel like the young
    fellow in my hometown when I was growing who fell into a barrel
    of molasses and looked in the mirror and said ``Let me try and
    live up to this opportunity.'' And so I hope that I can come up
    with a question or two that really speaks to the eloquence of
    your testimony.
        Let me just ask a general question. Do either one of you
    believe that national standards can ever be fairly applied
    across the board?
        The reason I ask that question, I represent one of the most
    diverse congressional districts in America. I represent some of
    the wealthiest people in the world. I represent downtown
    Chicago, the Gold Coast, the Magnificent Mile, Water Tower
    Place, the owner of the baseball teams. But I also represent 70
    percent of public housing in the city. So I struggle with my
    schools in terms of what to actually expect from them.
        So do you believe that we can apply the same level of
    expectation to school districts without regard to the
    socioeconomic status of the environment in which they're
    placed.
        Mr. Solis. Congressman Davis, I don't think you could apply
    that fairly across this nation. Once again, by recognizing that
    children come from different socioeconomic bases, what happens
    to prior knowledge? What happens to those experiences children
    have outside of the school? And children of poverty do not have
    all of those opportunities. So I think it would be a very
    difficult thing to be able to implement.
        Then the other question would be if in fact it were to take
    place would there be sufficient resources for those that are
    further behind to catch up so they could meet those national
    standards.
        So at this point I would say no, that would not be
    something that could be accomplished. And then also it would
    fly in the face of local control of the schools and what they
    deem are to be sufficient standards.
        Mr. Davis. Anyone else?
        Mr. Russell. Yes, Congressman.
        I guess my concern is is that I still believe that each
    community has the responsibility to determine what it wants for
    its young people, and I worry about national standards that
    will only result in something that's easier to measure, that is
    acceptable to such a diverse country that we have that I really
    think that that takes out the most important part about
    education, and that is the community participation and setting
    its own standards.
        And that's not to say that low standards are acceptable at
    all. Matter of fact, I think if communities were allowed to set
    those standards they would be higher than any national standard
    you could get that has to please everybody.
        So that's my problem, not based on socioeconomic standards,
    or whatever, but really based on if you take that away from
    communities you take the most vital part about what education
    means to places like Flint and Genesee County.
        Mr. Burroughs. Congressman Davis, I must concur with my two
    colleagues. But what they have been successful in when we look
    at our state tests, if we look at the FCAT in Florida or the
    MEAP, you know, here in Michigan, and Illinois has one, what
    all those tests have been successful in doing is really--there
    are people that can go out and actually tell you what's going
    to happen on the test beforehand. And what we're doing is
    measuring the socioeconomics of students. They'll take the free
    lunch or the poverty issue percentage of it, and they're very
    accurate when they come up with, you know, what we're going to
    get on the test.
        And then we start beating communities down, and we start
    beating the folks at the lower end of the socioeconomics down.
    You go into a failing school, which is not the case.
        And also it differs in states, you know, sometimes, too.
    They'll say, ``Well, because the test in Michigan is very hard
    we've had so many numbers of schools that are unaccredited.''
    I'll go to another state--and I'm not going to name that state
    or any other state. I'm not going to get into that. But they'll
    say, ``Well, they only had one unaccredited school.''
        Well, the tests are different sometimes. But what they are
    accurate in measuring is the socioeconomics of our children.
    And that's a sad state of affairs when we start very young and
    we start beating young children down, and our job is to make
    children dream. And they all learn at different rates.
        Mr. Tilley. I again agree. I'll give you one more example
    as to what happens when you set national standards. We have a
    state standard. Again with the ACT test being just taken
    recently students could no longer be prepped in the schools 10
    days prior to the test by the school itself. However--and if
    you were an online learner they had to pull it off their web
    sites by the end of February. However, if you had the money and
    the resources you could hire a tutor, you could go buy the
    books, you could go get CDs and you could prep till 8 o'clock
    in the morning before that test occurred.
        I mean, when you have a national or a state standard you're
    setting kids up for failure because it's not equal.
        Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis.
        Some have said, and I've observed this to some extent, but
    I'd like to get your views on this, some say that Michigan,
    first of all, started early and set high standards for itself
    and more stringent testing for itself, maybe more than another
    state which you mentioned you had in mind. I have a couple in
    mind, too, where the standards aren't as high as Michigan's and
    the tests may not be as stringent. And that concerns us,
    because Michigan, some say and have told me that they feel that
    Michigan's been penalized because it started early with high
    standards and stringent tests.
        Without administering a national test, say, the NAEP test,
    without administering that, could we use the NAEP test on an
    individual basis sampling to see how each state test might
    measure up in quality of the NAEP, quality of the NAEP? Anyone
    want to respond to that?
        Mr. Burroughs, you started it, do you want to----
        Mr. Burroughs. I started it. Okay.
        What you're saying would give you a fair glimpse of what's
    actually going on, I guess, state by state. Because I mentioned
    before, and I think you guys are very well aware of that, it
    varies from state to state what the test is. But it would give
    you some kind of a guide.
        But I just wouldn't want to make that test so heavily
    weighted that we destroy what--we're already doing that right
    now. And my colleague here has talked about that.
        I don't want to destroy kids, I want to build children up.
    I want to build families up. And what's come--one of the side
    effects of No Child Left Behind is is, you know, in some of our
    most neediest areas we're beating people down.
        It's very hard to tell a child that's fourth grade ``You
    didn't pass the MEAP test.'' And that child worked so hard. And
    he might have made adequate yearly progress. But as a teacher I
    think we struggle with that, and a parent, how we keep that
    child motivated, how we keep that child dreaming. And there's
    ways that we try to tell that child that.
        But a national level, at least it will give you some kind
    of a--it will level the playing field.
        And I see Mr. Solis wants to say something.
        Mr. Kildee. David.
        Mr. Solis. Chairman Kildee, in terms of assessing--I
    believe we have to be held accountable, and there's no question
    about it, because it's the taxpayers' dollars. And we concur
    with that.
        What we'd like to see, though, is as you indicate what this
    snapshot is measuring that there also be provisions in that
    that show actual amount of growth. And I'm not sure the NAEP
    does that.
        And so, yes, we need to be held accountable because these
    are precious dollars from our taxpayers. But at the same time
    how do we ensure that the full picture, the total picture is
    seen when we take--when we assess our children. So we're not
    opposed to the NAEP.
        Mr. Kildee. If we use NAEP just as a--not to measure the
    students so much, but to measure the test, would you find any
    danger in that?
        You know, when we established the Department of Education
    back in 1977, '78 under Jimmy Carter we forbade the federal
    government to set up a national curriculum. And that's still
    part of the law. And there are some who fear that the more you
    tighten down on testing that we are forcing people almost into
    a national curriculum.
        Do you think there's any danger if we could say, let's do
    some sampling here, take all the 50 states and see how their
    tests, whatever it may be in Mississippi, or Minnesota or
    Hawaii, is it as rigid as the NAEP test, and how does it relate
    to the rigidity of the NAEP test.
        Would you see any danger in doing that just on a sampling
    basis?
        Mr. Tilley. I see it as a Pandora's Box that once you open
    it and it comes down to who is going to be dictating policy as
    to what direction they would take those results. And I could
    see it just as what's happened with NCLB, and then Michigan has
    now jumped on board, you know, as one of the early runners on
    that, and now they've--and we now have a state curriculum. You
    know, that is one step closer to a national curriculum, and
    that is one step closer to a governmental society that we have
    so long tried not to become where the state is mandating what's
    going to be done, who will be doing it and how they will be
    doing it.
        I just--it's a fear I have. I mean, that doesn't
    necessarily mean that it's the wrong thing to do, but it's A
    flag that flies in front of me when I see that happening.
        Mr. Kildee. You think it would be a slippery slope?
        Mr. Tilley. Yes.
        Mr. Kildee. Thank you.
        Mr. Davis?
        Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Burroughs.
        Mr. Burroughs. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Davis. I think that a good part of No Child Left Behind
    was really developed in response to the notion that there was a
    lack of accountability on the part of teachers, that there was
    failure, that teachers unions had become too strong, too
    influential. And you're talking to a former union delegate and
    a member of the AFT, and I have a wife who is a teacher for
    thirty years, a sister who was a principal.
        But how do you answer the accountability and failure
    notions? The architects indicated that they felt that something
    had to be done to make sure that we were getting more mileage
    out of public education and that it was in a sad state, and, of
    course, No Child Left Behind was going to make it better. So
    how do you----
        Mr. Burroughs. I agree with what you said, Mr. Davis. I
    mean, I think it was a backlash on accountability. And we're
    not afraid of accountability. I guess it's how accountability
    is measured.
        Let me give you a personal experience from my--I had a
    fourth grade class, and they were all about three years behind.
    It was a group of children, I guess, no one wanted, you know. I
    got those children. I loved them every day.
        Now, did they make adequate yearly progress?
        Yes, sir, they did. And I worked--that was probably the
    hardest year I've ever worked in my life. And I loved those
    kids, and I gave them that. I gave them--I was mentor to them.
        Did they pass the MEAP test, which is the state's MEAP
    test? No, I only had two that passed that MEAP test.
        Now, if I took accountability and we just measured that on
    the MEAP test I was a complete failure. But in reality I was
    quite successful that year. Every one of my children made an
    adequate yearly progress from where they were at.
        So it's hard when you get into that accountability issue.
    How do you measure accountability?
        And there's so many things that go into teaching. With your
    background you know that now. I mean, there's so much that goes
    into it. I'm not afraid of accountability, but it's how it's
    measured. And that's where we get into that difficulty. How do
    we measure that?
        Mr. Davis. Sir, it would be very difficult for me to ever
    imagine you being a failure at all. And yet if you're only
    looking at the structured outcome of what happened with your
    class and with your students one could say, I guess, that
    something didn't come up to what was projected.
        Mr. Burroughs. Do you want to speak?
        Ms. Debardelaben. No.
        Mr. Davis. Go ahead.
        Mr. Burroughs. As a parent, too, I mean, you know, she
    would see what I did as a teacher, and she knows I'm working
    very hard. And, no, that child did not pass that MEAP test. But
    was that child successful? Yes. Was I successful? Yes.
        But if the accountability is strictly on that snapshot, in
    this case MEAP for accountability, I would be classified as a
    failure. In my heart I know I wasn't. But if we look at
    different issues such as that, that's the difficulty.
        And maybe Mr. Tilley would want to add to that as a
    teacher.
        Mr. Tilley. I think you hit the nail on the head, that to
    set a standard that everybody has to achieve is unrealistic. I
    mean, everybody is unique, everybody is different. That's what
    made this country so great is we've had people become artists.
    They wouldn't have tested well on a MEAP test. It's testing the
    math and sciences. And you have people that have different
    skills, and we need to nurture all of those skills.
        And so whether or not somebody wants to have a test that's
    going to measure where everybody's standing at as far as their
    academics goes, or their work keys, or whatever else they want
    to put on the test, it's got to be interpreted broadly,
    extremely broadly, because everybody is unique. And that's what
    makes public education and schools in this country so great.
        Mr. Solis. Congressman Davis, may I also respond to that?
        Mr. Davis. Yes.
        Mr. Solis. We all believe in accountability. We all believe
    that the subgroups should be performing at grade level. We're
    not afraid of the accountability. What we need is the
    additional support.
        For example, Mr. Jennings with the Center on Education
    Policy has been doing case studies across this nation in terms
    of what is working in terms of some of the sanctions under
    NCLB.
        We've been using the coaching model, and the coaching model
    we believe has been very effective. And if you look at our
    reform model here we have Tier 1 coaches, Tier 2 coaches, as
    well as intervention teachers. So, yes, we do need to look at
    data. But we also need to provide the support, and coaching is
    one way of doing it.
        I know there's options within the law that say you replace
    the entire staff. We don't see that as necessarily having an
    impact on student achievement. Replacing the principal.
    Sometimes replacing the principal doesn't change the new person
    coming in. But coaching people, whether it be at the
    administrative level or with teachers, or with para pros, we
    believe that's the way once you've looked at the data. And
    we've found that to be very successful here in Flint.
        Mr. Davis. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
        Ms. Debardelaben, you mentioned that in your son's school
    they at one time had not reached AYP, therefore they had
    special services----
        Ms. Debardelaben. Right.
        Mr. Kildee [continuing]. And your son and other students
    benefited from the special services.
        Ms. Debardelaben. Correct.
        Mr. Kildee. Then they were successful in reaching AYP and
    were deprived of those special services.
        Ms. Debardelaben. Yes.
        Mr. Kildee. That must be very frustrating both to the
    teachers, the parents and the students, right?
        Ms. Debardelaben. Yes.
        I have a son that works very hard. He works really--he
    wants to know. He just has a hard time.
        And I've done everything that I'm supposed to do as a
    parent at home. I meet with teachers, get different materials
    to work with him, and everything. It's just he needs that one-
    on-one attention, but since he is not low enough to say that he
    needs--that he's, I guess, considered special ed that he is
    missing out on that extra help that he needs.
        Mr. Kildee. It's something that I want to look at,
    because--of course, it's going to cost some money----
        Ms. Debardelaben. Right.
        Mr. Kildee [continuing]. But again if we had appropriated
    what we should have appropriated Michigan last year would have
    got $331 million extra, which could have helped a great deal.
        But what I'm hearing from all of you is it's not just the
    lack of dollars, that there's some other things in the bill
    that need some fixing. Right? The lack of dollars creates some
    problems, but there are some other things that need fixing on
    the standards, testing, AYP and the effects there.
        And, Mr. Russell, in a special school, as we have two
    special schools for severely cognitively handicapped people, we
    want to make sure they get the very best education possible,
    but at the same time realize that they aren't going to be able
    to pass probably the tests that the students in a regular
    setting with the regular cognitive ability, and we have to
    address that.
        I wrote Michigan's special ed bill, and I wrote a rather
    rigid one. We wrote that even before 94-142, the federal bill.
    And I put in the age, ages zero to twenty-six. That's why you
    have the twenty-six. I put that in. The federal law is just
    twenty-one.
        But do you think that we should really take a much closer
    look at the type of children that you educate in those two
    center schools you have? What all would you want us to change
    to address those students who have very special needs, very
    special problems?
        Mr. Russell. Well, I think, as I said in my testimony,
    we're very pleased that one of the subgroups of our students
    with disabilities, one of the real benefits that has occurred
    with No Child Left Behind is it has not left out students with
    disabilities for us to be accountable for their success in
    school, and I think that's one of the best aspects.
        But I also see as an issue that it's pretty unforgiving of
    the kinds of issues our young people have in terms of how they
    take tests, how they respond. Even with modifications and
    accommodations that are made our students very often we can't
    respond to that testing situation. And I think that instead of
    having rigid requirements of one percent or two percent, those
    kinds of things, we've just got to be more flexible and develop
    a system that recognizes that how our students learn and how we
    will be accountable needs to be more individualized.
        And I mentioned earlier about the growth model. I would be
    pleased to look at measuring how individual students progress
    on their IEPs and be accountable that every single student
    makes progress than set some sort of arbitrary standard that is
    based on grade expectations, third grade, fourth grade, or
    whatever.
        And I think again the problem is is that for many students
    with severe disabilities they just don't fit what was intended
    by No Child Left Behind. And so I think, I think that we need
    to leave it to states to find a way. We have MiAccess, we have
    an alternative curriculum that works in the state of Michigan.
    My staff worked towards that and towards our students
    accomplishing their goals and objectives. But I think that's
    what we should be accountable for. Because it just doesn't work
    for us to be accountable for some measurable standard. That's
    what I would change.
        Mr. Kildee. And I think that we in Genesee County are proud
    of those two centers, too, because we really have exerted
    ourselves. I've always demanded the IEPs be extremely
    important. And sitting down with the parents and the teachers,
    that's extremely important, and we want to maintain that. But I
    want to work closely with you. I know Mr. Horwich has been out
    visiting at the center. I want to come out again. It's been a
    few years.
        Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        And, Mr. Russell, let me just say that it's a pleasure to
    interact with one who is expert in the areas of individuals
    with disabilities.
        The most emotional experience I think I've ever had in
    education was speaking at an eighth grade graduation of a
    school that served the severely handicapped, and to see these
    young people in their wheelchairs with special apparatuses,
    with speech aids, but how by the time the graduation ended
    there wasn't a dry eye in the whole place, and it was just
    great to see.
        Another area, though, of special ed that I have some
    interest in and concerns about is the fact that every school
    district that I've looked at in America, the highest number of
    students in special ed are African-American boys. And is there
    anything that this district is doing in particular to look at
    that issue as it evaluates its system and looks at the
    requirements of No Child Left Behind.
        Mr. Russell. Yes, Congressman. We are working with the
    Michigan Department of Education, and this is probably a good
    example of using the data as a self-assessment and perspective
    of saying--and it's difficult for communities to understand
    this, and even experts. We struggle with disproportionality and
    making sure that students who are identified in special
    education are proportionate to the participation of all groups.
        But I also believe, too, that the answer to this is in
    those interventions that are available in general education for
    students who are having problems with learning. And this is
    another area that concerns me in terms of response to
    intervention, making eligibility for special education not just
    be the only solution to learning problems, but in fact that we
    have the kinds of interventions that some of the panel up here
    has talked about so that we in fact prevent special education
    for students with mild impairments, or issues with reading and
    computation, and so on.
        And so I think that's the secret. And where I think you see
    the lack of interventions in general education is where also
    you see some issues with disproportionality. Because if special
    education is the only solution to learning failure you will
    have a high rate of eligibility for kids in special ed.
        And that's the issue that I think you're talking about. And
    I don't think we have enough data now to say this across the
    board, but many of us suspect that those districts that are
    really struggling with disproportionality are districts that
    are struggling with providing interventions other than special
    education is requiring.
        So, yes, we're working very hard at that, and it's a
    national issue as well, as you know.
        Mr. Davis. Actually I was pleased that last year I think
    the committee included some language that I was interested in
    suggesting that any district in the country that had this kind
    of disproportionality would have to submit a statement to the
    Secretary of Education acknowledging the existence and also
    indicating what they propose to try to do about it, and what
    they propose to do to try to better understand it so that if
    there were factors contributing that could be dealt with then
    they could do so.
        Quickly I have another point. I was intrigued by the fact
    that, Mr. Burroughs, that you had taught the fourth grade.
        Mr. Burroughs. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Davis. And the question goes to Mr. Solis. I am
    convinced, Mr. Solis, and it's a theory, that one of the
    reasons that so many African-American and Latino boys drop out
    of school at an early age is that many of them never see a male
    of their racial or ethnic group in early education efforts.
    Whether it's at home or whether it's at school they've never
    seen a man reading a book or opening a book of their own racial
    identity or ethnic identity, and consequently by the time
    they're third or fourth grade they have pretty much decided
    that education is a woman thing, or a female thing, or a girl
    thing.
        How would you respond to that in terms of the numbers of
    African-American and Latino men who are actually teaching in
    early childhood education programs?
        Mr. Solis. I would concur with your statement. I'm trying
    to think of Latinos that are actually teaching. I can think of
    female Latinas that are teaching here in the Flint Community
    Schools. I think we have one gentleman at Southwestern, and I
    think we fortunately have one assistant principal now. But
    other than that there haven't been a lot of Latino teachers,
    and I think not having that has an impact in terms of not
    having male role models, and I believe it holds true for the
    Hispanic community also.
        Mr. Davis. Thank you very much. Because I believe that we
    could use No Child Left Behind and approaches to try and get at
    some of the problems in a way that's a little different than
    punishing districts, punishing schools, shutting down schools,
    bringing in all new personnel, putting schools on lists, and
    failure lists and watch lists that I'm not sure really does
    much, but I think if we could increase some of the programmatic
    activities such as that we'd do much better.
        Mr. Solis. I agree. And I'd like to make just one other
    statement, too. Because the large population are limited
    English proficient, and with that compounded that we don't have
    male role models there is a need for additional bilingual
    teachers, ESL teachers. And I happened to travel to Scottsdale,
    Arizona a couple years ago in an attempt to recruit--
    Congressman Kildee also worked with us in terms of going to
    Texas and working with Texas and Puerto Rico. One of the major
    areas in which it's very difficult is to attract bilingual ESL
    teachers. And as I mentioned earlier, we have approximately 600
    LEPs. Now, they're not solely Latinos, there are other
    languages, but I think that has a major impact on our children
    being able to succeed also.
        Mr. Davis. Thank you very much. Thank, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Burroughs, you mentioned I think it was a young female
    student who you wanted to participate in this special reading
    program but were told that, no, she couldn't because she
    wouldn't do well enough to change the score of the school.
    There's something fundamentally wrong with that, isn't there.
        Mr. Burroughs. Yes, there is. But you have to look at--and
    I'm not condoning this practice at all, because it's very
    insulting to hear that story that I just told you. But
    districts are underneath pressure sometimes to pass the state
    MEAP test in Michigan--but we can take other states, they have
    the same test--so they'll dwell on students that are close--
    Okay?--to raise them up to pass that test, you know, so the
    district or that school will look better standing.
        Now, this child that's so far behind, I guess we've kind of
    thrown that child away. And that's not what that reading
    program was designed for. And that's what's upsetting to not
    just teachers, administrators. It's how the system has kind
    of--the pressure is to pass that test. Okay? So they'll take
    those efforts and they'll put it on those children that are
    close.
        Mr. Kildee. The principal and the teacher are really geared
    to make sure they pass that test.
        Mr. Burroughs. You're underneath the gun to pass that test
    because that's how you're basically evaluated as a successful
    school. But we failed that child. And we have many of those
    children. We fail that child.
        Mr. Kildee. And that pains me, that really does. I'm glad
    you mentioned that particular case, because sometimes we think
    so generically we don't think specifically right to the
    individuals out there.
        You know, we have AYP, Adequate Yearly Progress, and we're
    talking about growth models, and we have some pilot studies out
    there and growth models now. With growth models you have to
    keep data, transferable data on individual students. Do you
    think we should expand at least the pilot studies and see how
    growth models can supplement or maybe be used instead of AYP?
    Any comments on that?
        Mr. Solis. Chairman Kildee, I agree that we need to find
    growth models to accurately assess our growth and not be
    penalized because students did not, on that day they took the
    snapshot of that child's academic performance. So I think there
    needs to be an increase in pilots.
        Once again to Mr. Burroughs' point, we have children,
    because of the political pressure to pass these tests we were
    looking at--I call them the bubble children. They're right
    there on the bubble trying to get them over. But those that are
    the high-risk students, those that are the furthest behind, the
    attention hasn't been there because they were trying to make
    that accreditation at the time. So I think growth models would
    help solve part of that.
        Mr. Kildee. Mr. Tilley, you mentioned reforming the HOUSSE
    process. HOUSSE is a--it's how you evaluate teachers whether
    they're qualified. It means High Objective Uniform State
    Standards of Evaluation. And we have used the HOUSSE method in
    Michigan. I can recall right after No Child Left Behind we
    might have a crackerjack government teacher, but found out that
    that government teacher had majored in history, but fifteen
    years ago, twenty years ago said ``Can you take this government
    class?'' and he turned out to be just a crackerjack government
    teacher, but he didn't technically meet the standards to be
    qualified in that, and HOUSSE may have helped there.
        Can you tell us how we can, keeping the term qualified
    teacher, how we could use HOUSSE more to help some of those
    people who have proved themselves to be qualified in their
    field, even though technically in their credentials they may
    not be.
        Mr. Tilley. First of all, the simplest form--the simplest
    answer to that would have been a simple grandfather clause.
    That would have been the easiest way to solve that problem.
    Teachers that have been teaching that subject matter over a
    period of years should automatically be grandfathered in to
    continue to teach that class.
        I've seen several of my colleagues, probably the best math
    teacher Bay City schools ever had was a PE major, and she
    taught math for 34 years and was forced into retirement because
    she did not want to go through the HOUSSE process which would
    have taken a lady, now, mind you that has taught math for
    almost that entire time period of 34 years now has to go and
    prove herself in a--I mean, it's an overwhelming task to get
    all the information you need to do the HOUSSE process. It's two
    or three months of solid work to go back and document all the
    meetings that you were at, all the professional development you
    did, all the education you did; whereas, through the years the
    school districts through their evaluations, the states through
    their recertification, where are you doing that? It was a
    simple solution to just say those people have the experience
    and they have the time in the classroom, they should be
    grandfathered in.
        And I think that needs to be taken into account, because I
    would assume through the years that certifications are going to
    become more and more stringent, that those standards are looked
    at or at least the grandfathering is looked at for teachers
    that are in other subject areas that are currently not required
    to be in their major.
        Mr. Kildee. And I think you and I would agree that we want
    to avoid what we had in California, maybe still to a great
    extent, we had 25,000 teachers in California who are
    uncertified, and that's why we put in the bill we wanted
    qualified teachers. And Mr. Miller, the chairman of the full
    committee, feels very strongly about that.
        But I know I've seen teachers right in Bay County who were
    in the field of government who were really great but
    technically did not meet the certification standards there.
        So we'll look at that, looking at two things, maintaining
    quality by recognizing there's various ways to achieve that
    quality.
        Mr. Tilley. And that's why you go through--you know, we
    have annual evaluations as teachers and those are the things
    that, you know, the administration does to evaluate the staff
    member, and those are the things they should be using and have
    been in a big portion of it as far--and also the
    recertification at the state level when you have to reapply for
    your certificate and pay for your license that the state's
    saying you're qualified, you're school is saying you're
    qualified, now all of a sudden legislation comes along and says
    after 34 years and everybody else saying you're qualified,
    you're not. Now you have to prove to us that you're qualified
    by doing all this--and it's exorbitant. If you've ever seen the
    HOUSSE process itself, it's huge.
        Mr. Kildee. Thank you.
        Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Debardelaben, let me ask you what motivated or
    stimulated you to be so actively involved in education from a
    lay person perspective? I notice that we all agree that
    parental involvement and participation, all of this is
    important, but I notice it comes at the end of almost
    everything that I see.
        I mean, it's kind of like oftentimes it's an afterthought
    of whoever is doing whatever they're doing, it's ``Oh, by the
    way, we've got to make sure that we've got parental
    involvement. We've got to have community involvement.''
        And I was thinking of my own childhood that the greatest
    motivated time that I ever experienced as a child was my mother
    coming up to school one day when I had decided that I was upset
    about something in terms of the teacher not giving me a speech
    at school closing. And I had gone home and said, ``I'm not
    going to the graduation, so you don't have to worry about
    buying me anything,'' and all of that.
        And she said, ``Why not?''
        I said, ``Well, Miss Smith didn't give me a speech.''
        And she says, ``Well, I'll be up there tomorrow to find out
    why.''
        And when my mother walked in the door, after having walked
    about eight miles to get there, I mean, I felt like I was just
    on top of the world, that there was nothing that you could do
    to deflate my ego or how I felt.
        So what brings you to this?
        Ms. Debardelaben. My parents were very involved with me and
    my schooling, me and my brother's schooling.
        I look at my kids and they want me to be happy with them
    all the time. When they bring home their report cards--you
    know, like my one, he's having trouble. But when I go into the
    classroom and speak with the teacher about him having trouble,
    he's more happy with that. Even if he's getting an E he's more
    happy that I came into the classroom and I talked to his
    teacher and, ``Well, mommy, what did the teacher say?''
        I say, ``Well, she says you're having trouble.''
        You know, he said, ``Well, are you going to be there
    tomorrow with me and sit next to me while I'm trying to read
    this book even though, you know, I'm having trouble?''
        That makes kids really happy that their parents are coming
    into the classroom and seeing that they're talking to their
    teachers.
        And like if a child--I have another--a niece that's having
    trouble with her teacher. For some reason they just clash. But
    when my cousin goes into the classroom she feels more
    comfortable and her mind is on learning instead of thinking
    about, ``Well, what is this teacher going to do to me today?''
    or ``Is the teacher going to kick me out today?''
        You know, so I think that when I look at my kids and they
    say, ``Just come to the school, mommy. Just come and see what's
    going on at school,'' that I just get up and go.
        You know, I want my kids to be happy at school, and if
    they're happy at school then they can learn. If they're unhappy
    then they're angry. They're sitting around in the corner
    pouting instead of listening to what the teachers are saying.
        So when I go into the classroom I can talk to their
    teachers one on one, talk to the principal, who at our school
    is a very good principal, and he's an African-American male,
    and he--and the children just like that.
        Even the other children whose parents aren't coming in,
    they see me coming and they're like ``Mrs. Debardelaben's here,
    so, you know, everything's okay.'' So that's what pushes me to
    go and be involved in their school.
        Mr. Davis. Well, I just believe that that's very, very
    important, and may be difficult to measure in terms of where
    people put that, because we really don't put resources, in many
    instances, into it to make sure that we do all in our power to
    attract people and have them come.
        And, Mr. Burroughs, you raised a concept that I find
    interesting, and that's how we pay our taxes and how we
    allocate money. But this notion of beginning to look at things
    from the vantage point that one community may have been a donor
    community at one time and now might be categorized or
    classified as a disadvantaged community, and so when we develop
    certain kinds of programs to try and help local governments,
    local areas and states to meet needs, that that's a
    consideration that we ought to take into account. So I find
    that intriguing, and I thank you for raising it.
        Mr. Burroughs. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Kildee. Since we're on funding, it's interesting. You
    have to pay for education, and that includes when the federal
    government mandates you should pay for education. And there's a
    direct relationship. Mr. Davis and I both voted against, about
    five years ago, a two trillion dollar tax cut. Two trillion
    dollar tax cut. Which is in effect. It passed. A trillion
    dollars, that's a thousand billion; one trillion dollars, a
    thousand billion.
        If we just made that a little less--I voted against the
    whole shooting match, as did Mr. Davis, and we spoke against it
    and told in no certain uncertain terms what we thought about
    it. But, you know, if they had just made it a little less than
    that we could have found the $70 billion to fully fund No Child
    Left Behind. It would have been just a little tweak out of that
    $2 trillion. But they wouldn't give in.
        And I predicted, as Mr. Davis predicted, that programs that
    are so important, including a brand new program, a brand new
    mandate, was not going to have the revenue to fund it.
        Beware of those people, by the way, who say ``Oh, I'm for
    education. I support education. I support education,'' but they
    vote to take the $2 trillion away, right? Beware of those.
        They remind me of people who go to a fine restaurant
    because they want the best, they want the best education, they
    go to a fine restaurant with their friends and they order the
    very best on the menu, the finest, and when a waiter comes by
    with the check they're bending over and tying their shoe
    letting someone else pick up the tab. We have a lot of shoe
    tiers in Congress.
        And that's one of the many reasons that we're not funding
    No Child Left Behind, because they took $2 trillion of revenue
    away. And we're just asking for 70 billion would fully fund it,
    70 billion over five years.
        So just be beware of those people. I just had to say that,
    because I get very frustrated. People think there's no
    relationship between revenue and spending. There's a great
    relationship. Probably should get ways and means together with
    the appropriations committee so they could talk to one another.
    They'll find out if they're going to spend they've got to find
    the dollars to spend.
        One other question here. Mr. Solis, you talked about the
    set-aside for a public school of choice and the supplemental
    educational services, one of the effects of their not meeting
    the AYP, the effect that might have on the rest of the school
    programs.
        Mr. Solis. As current law requires we must set that set-
    aside, a total of 20 percent of our allocation, which is
    approximately $3 million. So those dollars don't fly--they're
    not driven into the building. We have to set it aside.
        So, therefore, if we look back--and I had one--Miss Joyce
    Webb did a research paper on allocations, and if we were to
    just look at the set-aside for this current year we would be
    below the 2001-2002 funding level, or at that level without any
    increases for inflation.
        So I understand--we understand the importance of having
    some options for parents. We're not opposed to that. But the
    amount of set-aside if they were to totally be utilized would
    not have increased our allocations at all for the last five
    years, or it would be minimal, which would not take into
    account inflation or step increments.
        The other issue with set-asides is the Michigan Department
    of Ed was very generous in terms of--because there is a limit
    in terms of carryover. The reason we have exceeded carryover in
    the last three or four years had been directly attributed to
    money not utilized for SES programs. And so until the U.S.
    Department came in and cited the Michigan Department of Ed we
    had an open enrollment.
        So there's two sides to this set-aside issue. One is we
    have to set it aside at the beginning, and then when we had
    open enrollment, at the end of the year, because there were
    children that did not opt to take advantage of the SES
    programs, there was a large portion of money.
        So there needs--we're recommending that there be some
    flexibility. For example, what the Michigan Department of Ed
    had allowed was if you could directly attribute the--exceeding
    the 15 percent was directly attributed to funds not used for
    SES programs then that would not require you to use your one-
    time waiver.
        Also, just so you're aware, I think Flint has done an
    outstanding job in working with the SES providers. We had a
    vendor fair, and then we have parent fairs, and we do direct
    mailings, and I give credit to Dr. Lee and Lucy Jenkins that
    they've done an outstanding job.
        I was recently reading an article in one of the education
    magazines talking about the SES programs. There isn't anything
    in that article that Flint hasn't done.
        Once again, you know, when you have that large pool of
    money it does take away from monies that are driven to
    buildings. But on the positive side of that set-aside, when we
    had a deadline we were able to reallocate some of those funds
    for the reform model extended day program, which is after
    school, and the extended year.
        But there are some issues with that large amount of money
    being required to be set aside.
        Mr. Kildee. That chart you referred to, if you haven't
    already done so if you could give that to counsel, we'll make
    that part of the record.
        Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        We were talking about money. We know that money is very
    difficult to come by. I mean, especially if we are funding a
    war and spending billions each month, and then we've given the
    wealthiest one percent of the population part of their money
    back in terms of tax breaks and tax cuts. So you can't have a
    discussion hardly about anything without the impact of money
    coming into the equation.
        I guess I'd like to ask if each one of you could perhaps
    share one thing that you might be able to do to improve
    education or improve No Child Left Behind that may not cost any
    additional money. That is, if you can think of anything.
        Mr. Solis. The sanctions are very serious in terms of
    corrective action and restructuring, and with that money is set
    aside to provide that additional support. If those dollars
    would not have to be set aside for school improvement and
    flowed into the districts to determine how to use those to
    improve, that would be beneficial. No cost, no additional cost
    to the taxpayer. But once again, it would allow for the
    districts to have that money.
        I think the teachers, the administrators know what we need
    to do to improve student achievement here at the local level.
    But right now it's not administered that way.
        Mr. Davis. Anyone else.
        Mr. Russell. I would just suggest that we need to continue
    the flexibility for communities to use the funds that are
    available for, again, early interventions for students.
        You know, special education, I'm very proud to be a special
    educator. I've been one for thirty years. But I will say this,
    that the more kids we can prevent coming into special education
    the better that the whole system will be. And I think that
    allowing communities to allocate resources to help kids early
    on, get the help before failure, before those young men or
    women get discouraged about school would be one thing that I
    think would save money, in fact, in the long run, but certainly
    would at least be cost neutral.
        Mr. Burroughs. Mr. Davis, it's very hard for me to think of
    anything that's not connected to money at this time because I'm
    working for a district. We've cut the fat, we've cut the bone,
    and now we're in the process of starting to cut some vital
    organs. So it's very difficult for me at this time.
        Ms. Debardelaben. The only thing I can think of that
    wouldn't cost as much money is to try to get the parents more
    involved.
        I know at my children's school they do have different
    organizations, and actually the parent participation has picked
    up a lot. But I live in a community that is poverty stricken, I
    guess you'd say, and trying to get the parents to come out to
    the kids' school, they're just not doing it. And if we can get
    the parents to come in and see that the No Child Left Behind is
    basically trying to help their children to succeed then maybe
    the whole program would start to work better.
        Mr. Tilley. I also tend to agree with my colleague down
    here that I don't know if there's anything really at this time
    that won't cost money to really improve No Child Left Behind.
    But the long-term benefit of putting funds into early
    elementary and elementary before school and after school
    programs, and I firmly believe, you know, building self--having
    middle school kids and their self-esteem and their self-
    awareness, if there were courses set aside to teach them, ``You
    know, my body's changing. This is who I am and going to be.''
    Because they're so consumed with what they look like to their
    next-door neighbor they don't care what they have to do on a
    math test, or in a math class, or in a science class, or
    anything else. And if some of those programs are developed in
    the middle and the elementary school, and maybe even carry into
    the high school, that in the long run it would benefit all of
    us, it would save us money in the long run, because those kids
    would stay in school, they'd become more productive citizens,
    they'd become tax paying citizens and generate more revenue and
    the money would come back to us all.
        Mr. Davis. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Kildee. You know, your comment is very good. It's
    pretty well a given now that a person learns to read
    kindergarten through third grade, and after that they read to
    learn. If they haven't learned to read by the end of the third
    grade, many may wind up in your special ed who really shouldn't
    be in special ed, right? And I think that's really what--those
    K through third grade, it's so important that that's where we
    should really invest and make sure they learn to read. Because
    you see kids who wind up just stumbling along, or winding up in
    a special ed program. Which is very expensive, right?
        Mr. Russell. That's right.
        Mr. Kildee. It would be a good investment. It would be not
    only morally right, but fiscally right----
        Mr. Russell. That's correct.
        Mr. Kildee [continuing]. That we do that.
        Do you have any further questions?
        Mr. Davis. No, I have no questions, Mr. Chairman, and would
    just like to again thank you and thank the members of the
    panel, the witnesses who have come. I have been absolutely
    stimulated by your questions and by your expressions and by the
    concerns that you have raised, and I can understand why your
    community is a community of the future and how you have
    withstood some of the challenges that you have obviously faced
    as a community. And I only hope that those of us in Washington
    can take your experiences and then transform or translate them
    into action so that America does in fact continue to be the
    America of tomorrow and not the America of yesterday.
        So I thank you so much, and it's just a pleasure being
    here.
        Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Davis. And let's give Mr. Davis
    some applause. He's just an extraordinarily good Member of
    Congress. I've been there thirty years. He's been there since
    1995. I remember when he came in he's added to our committee,
    he's very faithful in attendance, and loves the human race,
    loves children. I always say certain people, they have a good
    head--he's very smart--but a good heart, too. And that's very,
    very important. Especially those who seek public office, I
    think.
        You know, today demonstrates something I've known for a
    long time, but sometimes you have to realize it and make it
    real in your life, that all the wisdom does not reside in
    Washington, D.C., it's out here.
        This has been one of the finest panels I've heard in a long
    time, long time. We've had high rollers in Washington
    testifying, you know, with all the awards they've received, and
    I mean really high rollers, well known around the world. And
    they were good. But I'll tell you, I've learned more about what
    the needs of children are and how No Child Left Behind should
    respond to those children from this panel right here, and I'm
    not exaggerating at all. And I think, Danny, Mr. Davis, would
    agree with that. This has been extraordinary.
        And again, the audience, your presence here again, anyone
    who would like to submit something for the record, get that to
    Mr. Horwich, and let him know your name so he'll accept--if you
    have it with you, just leave it with him, but you'll have seven
    days in which you can get it to him, and it will become a part
    of this record along with those who were the official witnesses
    here.
        So I again thank all of you, the witnesses, and any member
    may say--any member of the--I have to say this just for the
    record, too. Any member of this committee not here today may
    also have seven days to submit additional testimony. And with
    that this hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
        [Additional statements entered into the record by Mr.
    Kildee follow:]

     Prepared Statement of Curtis Decker, Executive Director, the National
                           Disability Rights Network

        The National Disability Rights Network (``NDRN''), is the
    membership association of protection and advocacy (``P&A'') agencies
    which are located in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto
    Rico, and the territories (the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa and
    the Northern Marianas Islands). P&As are mandated under various federal
    statutes to provide legal representation and related advocacy services
    on behalf of all persons with disabilities in a variety of settings. As
    a network, the P&As provide free assistance to over 20,000 families per
    year in education cases involving the IDEA and Section 504 of the
    Rehabilitation Act of 1973. P&As have a unique, significant and long-
    term interest in laws that will affect the rights of students with
    disabilities. The P&A system comprises the nation's largest provider of
    legally based advocacy services for children and adults with
    disabilities and their families.
        Below are preliminary recommendations for the reauthorization of
    NCLB. There are other areas of the statute that deserve attention and
    require revision. However, NDRN has focused on five major issues at
    this time. NDRN is available to provide continued consultation during
    the reauthorization process and is more than willing to provide
    additional comment and suggestions regarding changes to the statute
    throughout the reauthorization process.
    I. Supplemental Educational Services:
        The provision that provides supplemental educational services to
    students in schools that have failed to make Annual Yearly Progress
    (AYP) must be adequately resourced for all students, including students
    with disabilities. Currently, based on anecdotal evidence, services are
    often limited for all children, but especially limited--if available at
    all--for children with disabilities. This is particularly true in rural
    areas and impoverished urban areas. The Commission on No Child Left
    Behind (hereinafter Commission) reports that there is a lack of
    meaningful evaluation of providers and lack of coordination among
    providers and public school teachers. In order for the Supplemental
    Educational Services (SES) to benefit children statutory changes are
    necessary. The statute must require the State and Local Educational
    Agencies to locate and identify private providers who can meet the
    needs of students with disabilities and must ensure proper
    communication among those providers and school personnel. Specifically
    the statute should be amended as follows: (new language in bold and
    italics)
        Sec. 1116(e)(4) ``(4) STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES.--A
    State educational agency shall----
        ``(A) in consultation with local educational agencies, parents,
    teachers, and other interested members of the public, promote maximum
    participation by providers throughout the state, including providers
    capable of providing services to students with disabilities, to ensure,
    to the extent practicable, that parents have as many choices as
    possible,
        ``(B) develop and apply objective criteria, consistent with
    paragraph (5), to potential providers that are based on a demonstrated
    record of effectiveness in increasing the academic proficiency of
    students, including students with disabilities in subjects relevant to
    meeting the State academic content and student achievement standards
    adopted under section 1111(b)(1);
        ``(C) maintain an updated list of approved providers across the
    State, by school district, ensuring widespread geographic distribution
    of needed providers throughout the state, from which parents may
    select;
        Sec.1116(e)(5) ``(5) CRITERIA FOR PROVIDERS.--In order for a
    provider to be included on the State list under paragraph (4)(C), a
    provider shall agree to carry out the following:
        ``(A) Provide parents of children receiving supplemental
    educational services under this subsection and the appropriate local
    educational agency with information on the progress of the children in
    increasing achievement, in a format and, to the extent practicable, a
    language that such parents can understand.
        ``(B) Ensure that instruction provided and content used by the
    provider are consistent with the instruction provided and content used
    by the local educational agency and State, and are aligned with State
    student academic achievement standards.
        (C) Ensure that instruction is provided to students with
    disabilities who are entitled to services under the Individuals with
    Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and students entitled to services
    under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
        (Section 504) receive appropriate services and accommodations
    consistent with the student's individualized education program under
    section 1414(d) of IDEA and consistent with a student's 504 plan under
    29 U.S.C. sec.794 ( Section 504).
        ``(C)(D) Meet all applicable Federal, State, and local health,
    safety, and civil rights laws.
        ``(D) (D)Ensure that all instruction and content under this
    subsection are secular, neutral, and nonideological.
    II. Highly Qualified Teachers/ Highly Qualified Effective Teachers.
        A. Professional Development
        The Commission report notes that there is concern about the
    qualification of general education teachers teaching special education
    students. As the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act mandates,
    more and more students with disabilities are receiving services in the
    general education environment and rely more heavily on general
    education teachers for their education. As such, it is important that
    both special education and general education teachers have the
    necessary training and skills to successfully and effectively teach
    students with disabilities in every environment.
        The Commission seeks a change to the highly qualified teacher
    qualifications, which require that a teacher become a highly qualified
    effective teacher (HQET). The concept, though good fails to guarantee
    that teachers will receive the professional development they need to
    ensure that students in special and general education get the
    instruction they need.
        NDRN recommends that when evaluating teachers under the HQET
    criteria, the statute should mandate that all teachers be required to
    demonstrate that they can effectively teach students with disabilities.
    Further, the professional development that is triggered by the value-
    added methodology as well as other mandated professional development
    under NCLB must include training teachers how to adapt the general
    education curriculum for children with disabilities, how to use
    research based practices, and provide differentiated instruction,
    assistive technology supports, positive behavior supports and other
    inclusion techniques. Further, adequate federal funding must be
    provided to the states to properly institute high quality professional
    development.
        The suggested statutory language below is designed to fit within
    the confines of the current statutory structure. It is anticipated that
    NCLB will be significantly amended in regard to the Highly Qualified
    Teacher (HQT) requirements. If so, the recommended language may need to
    be applied to a different segment of the HQT section of the statute.
    NDRN is available to revise or provide additional suggestions as the
    reauthorization process continues. The most important aspect of the
    recommended language is to ensure that all teachers, both special
    education teachers and regular education teachers are trained on how to
    provide appropriate instruction in an inclusive environment for
    students with disabilities. Preferably this would be a professional
    development requirement for all teachers.
        This definition of professional development should be included in
    section 9101 (34) as follows:
        Sec. 9101(34)(A)(xiii) provide instruction in methods of teaching
    children with special needs. Instruction of teachers shall include
    training about: adapting the general education curriculum for special
    education students, using research-based practices, differentiated
    instruction, assistive technology supports and services, positive
    behavior supports, and other methods and practices that promote the
    inclusion of children with disabilities in the academic and non-
    academic aspects of the school.
        B. Teacher Preparation
        In addition to professional development for teachers while they are
    engaged in teaching, there must be training for teachers at the
    university and college level that ensures all teachers are prepared at
    the front end to teach a variety of learners, including children
    identified with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities
    Education Act. As part of the university or college curriculum there
    must be a requirement that teachers learn how to teach using Universal
    Design and learn how to adapt the general education curriculum for
    special education students. Further teachers must learn about peer-
    reviewed researched methods of teaching, differentiated instruction,
    assistive technology supports and services, positive behavior supports
    and other methods and practices that effect successful inclusion of
    students with disabilities in the classroom.
        NDRN NNNDNRrecommends that NCLB be amended to include the following
    requirement: As part of a state's program approval process,
    institutions of higher education shall be required to establish that
    their teacher preparation programs are designed to provide all teacher
    candidates, both general and special education, with the competencies
    necessary to teach effectively students with and without disabilities.
    III. Accountability
        One of the cornerstone concepts of NCLB is to ensure that all
    students are included in assessments at grade level standards.
    Currently the regulations to the NCLB statute permit the states to
    count 1% of students with severe cognitive disabilities who take
    alternative assessments and pass those tests as part of Adequate Yearly
    Progress (AYP). Further, a U.S. DOE policy and pending regulations
    permit states to count up to 2% of testing for students who take
    assessments based on modified Academic Achievement Standards, toward
    AYP as proficient.
        NDRN is not currently suggesting a statutory change. We believe
    that these adjustments should continue to be made through the more
    flexible policy or regulatory process. However, NDRN has concerns about
    modified assessments overall, and filed comments to the U.S. Department
    of Education during the earlier regulatory process. (attached and
    available at www.ndrn.org) NDRN wants to ensure that schools, teachers
    and states remain accountable for the progress of all students
    including students with disabilities.
        The purpose of the Department's proposed regulations is to assist
    States in meeting Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and avoid becoming a
    school ``in need of service.'' However, the U.S. Department of
    Education and the U.S. Congress when reauthorizing NCLB must focus on
    ensuring students with disabilities receive high quality instruction
    with appropriate accommodations in the least restrictive setting, while
    holding school personnel accountable to the educational progress of all
    students.
        The Department must ensure the regulations encourage States and
    Districts to strive to teach children to their highest potential rather
    than use the modified assessments as a crutch that relieves
    accountability requirements. To the extent, Congress intends to modify
    the current statute, any language regarding modified testing must
    ensure that states cannot use the testing as an escape hatch to
    providing highly qualified and effective teaching to students with
    disabilities. Further, any changes must make clear that the child's
    educational needs, including testing needs and levels are driven by the
    IEP team as required by the IDEA.
    IV. A Government Accountability Office Study.
        The statute provides for students to receive supplemental
    educational services and school transfers when schools fail to make
    adequate yearly progress. In order for these options to have meaning
    for students and to actually assist students who attend failing
    schools, the services must be available and capable of meeting the
    needs of the students. By anecdotal evidence, Protection and Advocacy
    Agencies have reported the inability of students with disabilities to
    receive the type of supplementary educational services they are
    entitled to receive. The reasons for the inability to receive services
    vary. For example, some students, who live in rural areas, do not have
    access to the services needed because the type of provider the student
    needs is not readily available in the rural area. On the other hand, in
    urban areas, although the type of provider the child needs may offer
    services in the area, the number of providers is not sufficient to
    handle the number of students entitled to services.
        In regards to public school choice transfers, information obtained
    suggests that in some urban areas, the choice option for attending
    public schools is severely limited because most of the schools within
    that region failed to make adequate yearly progress. The result is
    students are forced to remain in substandard schools because the
    resources provided to ensure they may obtain an education in schools
    that meet the requirements of NCLB is not available. This problem is
    even more acute for students with disabilities.
        NDRN recommends that Congress ask the Government Accountability
    Office to conduct a study on whether students, including students with
    disabilities in rural, urban and suburban environments are able to
    access the supplemental educational services and public school choice
    options provided by NCLB.
        This report would provide an avenue to determine the barriers that
    school systems face in making services available to students and focus
    on any particular barriers faced by schools to meet the needs of
    students with disabilities. Further, this report would analyze
    information from families about the frustrations they face when
    attempting to secure supplemental educational services and public
    school transfers for their children. The purpose of the report would be
    to provide useful information on the implementation of this part of
    NCLB and provide Congress with background on what changes in the law
    are needed to ensure the promise of leaving no child left behind is
    met.
    V.Protection and Advocacy Program for Students with Disabilities.
        Students with disabilities and their parents must navigate the
    complex world of IDEA and NCLB on a daily basis, most without the
    training and resources provided to school personnel to navigate those
    same laws. Advocating for your own child through this maze can be a
    daunting task at best. Dealing with the needs of a child with special
    needs can at times require considerable time and energy. On top of
    providing the daily needs of the child the parents must also learn
    about the child's educational rights and pursue what their child needs
    through the school system. The Protection and Advocacy Systems (P&A)
    across the country provide assistance to these families in need.
    However, P&As must rely on grant funds that are not specifically
    allocated for special education or find other means of funding in order
    to assist children with disabilities in schools.
        Because P&A's generally rely on grant money and not attorney's fees
    in order to represent families, most if not all P&As are willing to
    work through issues with the school district and the parents first
    without seeking due process (which may lead to an award of attorneys
    fees). However, it is becoming increasingly difficult for P&A attorneys
    and advocates to continue to advocate for these students and at the
    same time provide needed advocacy services to other populations of
    people with disabilities. Funds directed for the purpose of advocating
    for children in schools is needed to ensure the protection of children
    with disabilities and their families. Below is recommended language to
    be included in the reauthorized NCLB Act.
    Protection and Advocacy Program for Students with Disabilities.
        ``(a) In General.--The Secretary of Education shall make grants to
    protection and advocacy systems for the purpose of enabling such
    systems to address the needs of children with disabilities and their
    families who are negotiating the educational systems.
        ``(b) Services Provided.--Services provided under this section may
    include the provision of----
        ``(1) information, referrals, and advice;
        ``(2) individual and family advocacy;
        ``(3) legal representation; and
        ``(4) specific assistance in self-advocacy.
        ``(c) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under this
    section, a protection and advocacy system shall submit an application
    to the Secretary at such time, in such form and manner, and accompanied
    by such information and assurances as the Secretary may require.
        ``(d) Appropriations Less Than $12,000,000.----
        ``(1) IN GENERAL.--With respect to any fiscal year in which the
    amount appropriated under subsection (i) to carry out this section is
    less than $12,000,000 the Secretary shall make grants from such amount
    to individual protection and advocacy systems within States to enable
    such systems to plan for, develop outreach strategies for, and carry
    out services authorized under this section for children with
    disabilities and their families.
        ``(2) Amount of grant.--The amount of a grant under paragraph (1)
    shall be based on the size of the State in which the individual
    protection and advocacy system is located but be not less than $200,000
    for individual protection and advocacy systems located in States and
    not less than $100,000 for individual protection and advocacy systems
    located in territories and the American Indian consortium.
        ``(e) Appropriations of $12,000,000 or More.--The Secretary shall
    make grants during each fiscal year not later than October 1 to States
    as follows:
        ``(1) POPULATION BASIS.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), with
    respect to each fiscal year in which the amount appropriated under
    subsection (i) to carry out this section is $12,000,000 or more, the
    Secretary shall make a grant to a protection and advocacy system within
    each State.
        ``(2) Amount.--The amount of a grant provided to a system under
    paragraph (1) shall be equal to an amount bearing the same ratio to the
    total amount appropriated for the fiscal year involved under subsection
    (i) as the population of the State in which the grantee is located
    bears to the population of all States.
        ``(3) Minimums.--Subject to the availability of appropriations, the
    amount of a grant to a protection and advocacy system under paragraph
    (1) for a fiscal year shall be----
        ``(A) in the case of a protection and advocacy system located in
    American Samoa, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, or the
    Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the protection and
    advocacy system serving the American Indian consortium, not less than
    $100,000; and
        ``(B) in the case of a protection and advocacy system in a State
    not described in subparagraph (A), not less than $200,000.
        ``(4) Inflation adjustment.--For each fiscal year in which the
    total amount appropriated under subsection (i) to carry out this
    section is $14,000,000 or more, and such appropriated amount exceeds
    the total amount appropriated to carry out this section in the
    preceding fiscal year, the Secretary shall increase each of the minimum
    grant amounts described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (3)
    by a percentage equal to the percentage increase in the total amount
    appropriated under subsection (i) to carry out this section between the
    preceding fiscal year and the fiscal year involved.
        ``(f) Carryover.--Any amount paid to a protection and advocacy
    system that serves a State or the American Indian consortium for a
    fiscal year under this section that remains unobligated at the end of
    such fiscal year shall remain available to such system for obligation
    during the next fiscal year for the purposes for which such amount was
    originally provided.
        ``(g) Direct Payment.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
    the Secretary shall pay directly to any protection and advocacy system
    that complies with the provisions of this section, the total amount of
    the grant for such system, unless the system provides otherwise for
    such payment.
        ``(h) Annual Report.--Each protection and advocacy system that
    receives a payment under this section shall submit an annual report to
    the Secretary concerning the services provided to emerging populations
    of individuals with disabilities by such system.
        ``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be
    appropriated to carry out this section $16,000,000 for fiscal year
    2008, and such sums as may be necessary for each the fiscal years 2009
    through 2013.
        ``(j) Definitions.--In this section:
        ``(1) AMERICAN INDIAN CONSORTIUM.--The term `American Indian
    consortium' has the meaning given the term in section 102 of the
    Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000
    (42 U.S.C. 15002).
        ``(2) Protection and advocacy system.--The term `protection and
    advocacy system' means a protection and advocacy system established
    under section 143 of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill
    of Rights Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 15043).
        ``(3) State.--The term `State', unless otherwise specified, means
    the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
    Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam,
    American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
        ``(k) Technical Assistance.--The Secretary shall reserve 2 percent
    of appropriated funds to make a grant to an eligible national
    organization for providing training and technical assistance to
    protection and advocacy systems.''.
        The comments and recommendations provided in this document are
    preliminary recommendations given the time constraints to respond to
    the Senate's request. NDRN has an avid and deep interest on the impact
    the reauthorization of NCLB will have on students with disabilities and
    we are available to answer any additional questions or provide
    additional input about specific areas being addressed by the Senate
    when the issues arise.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Susan Doneson, Teacher, Program Supervisor,
                              Meridian High School

        Chairman Kildee, I am Susan Doneson, a teacher and program
    supervisor at Meridian High School, in Haslett, MI, and I request that
    the following testimony be included in the record of the April 12, 2007
    Subcommittee hearing held in Flint, Michigan.
        ``No Child Left Behind'' is up for reauthorization and while it is
    difficult to argue with the spirit of this legislation, there have been
    some unfortunate and potentially devastating collateral effects of the
    law as it currently stands in terms of penalizing the very programs
    that exist to support and remediate our most at-risk students in
    Michigan.
        The component of this legislation that most concerns me is the
    assumption that all students should be able to graduate from high
    school in four years. As the law currently is written, high schools are
    penalized if students take more than four years to earn their diplomas;
    the schools often are listed as failing to make AYP (adequate yearly
    progress,) a serious negative label that brings with it various
    consequences. All students who do not graduate in four years are
    counted in the statistics for that high school as dropouts, even if
    they complete their high school educations in an additional semester or
    year.
        While it may be realistic and even desirable to assume that the
    majority of students in the state and nation can complete high school
    in four years, there are compelling reasons why this may not be the
    case for all students, and if ``no child is to be left behind,'' then
    schools that exist to ensure that, in fact, ``no child is left
    behind,'' should be seen as part of the solution rather than part of
    the problem. Meridian High School is an example of an effective
    alternative high school, administered by Haslett Public Schools. For
    more than two decades, we have been educating our most vulnerable high
    school students with more than 70% of our graduates going on to post-
    secondary education. I have been with the program since its inception
    as program supervisor/teacher for our award-winning teen parent program
    and also serve as teacher/chairperson of our Language Arts department.
        Students come to Meridian from approximately eleven different area
    school districts for many reasons including pregnancy, substance abuse
    issues, or family chaos to name a few, but there are some
    generalizations that may be said about most of our students.
         Most students will transfer to Meridian in the second year
    of high school or later.
         Student will already be behind in terms of earned credits
    (average is 1 semester or 3 credits)
         Student may come to Meridian having already taken some
    time off from high school (dropped out from previous school)
         If pregnant, student may lose some time due to delivery
         Attendance has been an issue in prior schools
         Student is likely to have been on Special Education
    caseload at some point in academic career and may still be on SE
    caseload
         Student is likely to lose some credit at Meridian due to
    poor attendance especially during early semesters with us (old habits
    are hard to break)
        Given these ``pre-existing conditions,'' it is impossible for most
    of our students to earn their diplomas within four years of beginning
    high school since they are already behind before they ever cross our
    threshold. In a sense we are being penalized for the failures of their
    original high schools to meet their needs rather than the educational
    program we provide. There has to be a better way to compute the
    progress of these at-risk students and hold alternative high schools
    like Meridian accountable for the educations we provide.
        But, in thinking more about five-year graduation plans, I wanted to
    describe a scenario we sometimes encounter @Meridian--one that also
    results in a five-year graduation plan for a student--but for very
    different reasons. For this purpose, I will describe an actual student
    who graduated in June '06 with a full ride to Lansing Community College
    as well as an acceptance to Kettering. He is attending LCC, doing well
    and plans to transfer to Kettering after two years to complete a four-
    year degree.
        Z. was a very shy and quiet young man when he entered MHS in his
    3rd year of high school. His schooling to this point had been mostly in
    Christian schools but also involved some years of home schooling. He
    did not mix well with other students but related better to staff. Z.
    was obviously bright and capable but required extra time to complete
    his work. He qualified for special education services as ADHD.
        When he came to us Z. had earned 6 credits in his first year of
    high school, second year, 3 credits earned (cumulative total: 9 credits
    earned); He came to us during his third year of high school and earned
    6.25 credits (cumulative total: 15.25) During his fourth and what
    should and could have been his final year in high school, Z. decided to
    attend the Capital Area Career Center to study in two areas of great
    interest to him: Drafting and Computer Programming. He delayed taking
    two district-required high school classes so he could complete the
    second year of the Career Center Drafting course even though it meant
    he would have a fifth year in high school We knew that this would mean
    that Z. would be counted as a drop-out in the Meridian High Schools
    stats but we also knew that a five-year high school plan was definitely
    in Z.'s best interest, academically, emotionally and socially. As we
    expected, Z. ``bloomed'' in those last two years of high school. He
    participated in a wide variety of extra curricular activities--
    something he had shunned his first year at MHS. He was on several
    sports teams, played on the chess team, and attended a week of CLOSE UP
    in Washington, D.C. with five other students and a teacher. During his
    fifth year he was employed as a draftsman on the recommendation of his
    Career Center teacher and got rave reviews. He is still working part-
    time for that employer while attending LCC. During that fifth year in
    high school, Z. also dated for the first time. As one of his teachers,
    I truly believe that Z. needed that extra year of high school to mature
    and be confident enough to face the challenges of post secondary
    education and we were happy to provide it. In our eyes he is a success
    story, yet, in terms of AYP, he is counted as one of our dropouts.
    Ironic, isn't it?
        ``No Child Left Behind'' holds schools accountable and certainly,
    as an educator, I have no problem with that concept. But it is also
    important to remember that ``one size does not fit all'' in terms of
    education and the legislation as it is currently written seems to
    ignore that fact.
        Reauthorizing NCLB with the recognition that some students will
    need to take five-years to master the skills and earn the credits
    necessary to graduate with a diploma is critical to the survival of
    alternative high schools that create safe havens for our most at-risk
    students so that they, too, can graduate from high school and become
    fully participating and contributing adults in our society.
        I invite you to visit Meridian High School for a firsthand look at
    our programs and the students we serve.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of Dr. Mary K. Lose, Oakland University

        Chairman Kildee and members of the Subcommittee, I would first like
    to thank you for the opportunity to submit this written testimony for
    the record on behalf of the 24,724 first grade children who comprise
    the most at-risk literacy learners (the bottom performing 20%) in our
    Michigan schools. These are the children that our state cannot afford
    to `leave behind'. Within Michigan's 5th Congressional District, this
    includes 521 struggling first grade students in 32 elementary schools
    in 18 school districts. The majority of these schools are affiliated
    with the regional Reading Recovery Site in the Genesee Intermediate
    School District in Flint, Michigan.
        In 1972, I started teaching struggling middle school students who
    were placed in special education primarily because they could not read.
    Four years later I provided professional support and consultation in
    Learning Disabilities to administrators, teachers, and schools as a
    member of the Heartland Area Education Agency, one of 13 regional
    educational centers in Iowa that provide support to schools and that
    serve as a link between the Iowa Department of Education and local
    districts. Later, as a university professor I prepared teachers of
    struggling learners in Iowa and Indiana and now in Michigan as
    assistant professor and Director of the Reading Recovery Center of
    Michigan at Oakland University.
        Learning to read and write in the early grades is critical to a
    child's future and equally importantly critical to our nation's future.
    Reading Recovery has a strong track record of preventing literacy
    failure for many first graders. Results support the investment of
    resources for this prevention effort. Yet, Michigan is still far from
    providing Reading Recovery to all the children who need it. Districts
    that want to implement Reading Recovery have been hard pressed to do so
    in this challenging economy. Many of the participating districts in
    Michigan experience the impact of low coverage. Four out of five
    students in Michigan who need Reading Recovery do not have access to
    the intervention. Ideally, 20 % of our state's first graders should
    have access to high quality one-to-one instruction by a highly-skilled,
    professionally-developed teacher. Michigan cannot afford to not invest
    early in its youngest citizens.
        Children can succeed if we provide them the instruction and
    opportunities they require for success. To deny children what is
    required for their success fails them now and penalizes them for a
    lifetime. Those who are concerned about leaving no child behind could
    achieve greater equity by investing early in our children, providing
    the Reading Recovery intervention to the 24,724 Michigan first graders
    and the hundreds of thousands of our nation's children that could
    benefit from Reading Recovery.
        Reading Recovery is a short-term early literacy intervention
    designed for first grade children having extreme difficulty learning to
    read and write. Children meet individually with a highly skilled
    certified teacher for 30 minutes daily for an average of 12-20 weeks.
    Most children served by Reading Recovery make accelerated progress and
    meet grade level expectations and continue learning in dependently in
    the classroom. Reading Recovery also serves as a pre-referral program
    for a small number of children who may need specialized longer-term
    support.
        The Reading Recovery Center of Michigan at Oakland University is a
    not-for-profit collaborative effort among schools, districts and the
    university. Within the university's School of Education and Human
    Services, the Center conducts research and evaluation, provides
    technical support to schools and prepares and professionally develops
    26 teacher leaders who support 591 teachers working in Reading Recovery
    in 138 school districts and 437 schools throughout Michigan. During the
    2005-2006 school year Reading Recovery teachers provided early literacy
    intervention to 5,190 of Michigan's most at-risk learners and applied
    their expertise while working with 37,864 additional students in their
    other roles as classroom teacher, Title I/reading teacher, English
    Language teacher, special educator, literacy coach and staff developer.
    Since 1991, over 78,200 children have become readers and writers
    because of Reading Recovery.
        In my 35 year career in education, it has been my passion to
    support the learning of the children who due to multiple risk factors
    such as poverty, language barriers, and learning challenges are the
    most vulnerable to failure in our schools. These are the children most
    in need of the skilled support of teachers, provided early, not later,
    before these children habituate failure and fall hopelessly behind
    their peers.
        The No Child Left Behind Act is designed to support schools to help
    these children. Based on my observation, the NCLB Act has not entirely
    met its promise to children, their parents, teachers, and schools.
    Therefore, I respectfully request that the Committee give careful
    consider to the following recommendations to benefit children in
    Michigan and children throughout the United States so that no child
    will in fact be `left behind'.
        1. Assure early intervention for struggling students by retaining
    the ``safety net'' language in schoolwide Title I programs and
    recognize accelerated learning as crucial for closing the reading
    achievement gap.
        Even with the most effective schoolwide program and/or classroom
    instruction, some students will require additional assistance. Juel's
    1988 longitudinal study found that the probability that a poor reader
    at the end of Grade 1 would remain a poor reader at the end of Grade 4
    was very high (.88) (Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 437-
    447). Early intervention to accelerate learning is essential to close
    the reading achievement gap. The recent enactment of early intervening
    services (EIS) and response to intervention (RTI) under the IDEA
    reauthorization of 2004 further emphasizes the necessity of providing
    targeted assistance to students who need it.
        2. Restore one-to-one instruction in the Reading First program.
        Even the most skilled classroom teacher will be hard pressed to
    meet the diverse learning needs of all children in the classroom and in
    small group instructional settings. The Conference Committee Report for
    PL 107-110 states unequivocally that ``The Conferees intend State
    educational agencies and local educational agencies to be able to
    select from a wide variety of quality programs and interventions to
    fund under Reading First and Early Reading First, including small group
    and one-to-one instruction, so long as those programs are based in
    research meeting the criteria in the definition of scientifically based
    reading research.'' (Conference Report to Accompany HR 1, Government
    Printing Office, printed December 13, 2001, p. 768.).
        3. Expand involvement by education, literacy and research experts
    on Reading First peer review panels.
        The Office of Inspector General found in September 2006 that the
    U.S. Department of Education took action with respect to the expert
    review panel process for Reading First that was contrary to the
    balanced panel composition envisioned by Congress. Further, the OIG
    found that the selection of the expert review panel was not in
    compliance with the law because the Department failed to ensure that
    each State application was reviewed by a properly constituted panel.
    The Reading Recovery Council of North America proposes a broadened
    representation on the peer review panel and benchmarks expertise in
    research to the What Works Clearinghouse evidence standards.
        4. Update the definition of ``essential components of reading
    instruction'' to reflect recent data of effectiveness.
        The requirement that instruction be ``explicit and systematic'' is
    based on a conclusion from the National Reading Panel (NRP) that was
    later discredited by a follow-up meta-analysis. Camilli et al. found
    that while systematic instruction in phonics provided statistically
    significant improvement, it was less effective than published in the
    NRP report and also was less effective than instruction provided by an
    individual tutor (Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 11, No. 5,
    May 8, 2003, ISSN 1068-2341).
        5. Amend the definition of ``scientifically-based reading
    research'' to reflect the contributions of the United States Department
    of Education What Works Clearinghouse toward identifying high quality
    research.
        6. Establish and maintain achievement standards, but ensure
    accountability through assessments that measure individual children's
    growth over time in literacy, not a one-size-fits all standard for all
    learners.
        Thank you again for this opportunity. I would be happy to provide
    you or your staff additional information about Reading Recovery in
    Michigan.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of Linda Schmidt, Policy Adviser, Michigan
                          Department of Human Services

        Chairman Kildee and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the
    opportunity to provide testimony regarding the reauthorization of the
    Elementary and Secondary Education Act and No Child Left Behind.
        The mission of the Michigan Department of Human Services (MDHS) is
    to assist children, families and vulnerable adults to be safe, stable
    and self-supporting.
        In 2003, Governor Granholm created a visionary strategy for linking
    two of the state's most pressing issues; the need to increase
    efficiency and access to services through improved service delivery
    integration across state departments, and the need for innovative
    strategies to address poverty and its compounding effects on children
    and families. One project that grew out of this vision is the Family
    Resource Center project.
        Family Resource Centers (FRCs) are service centers where MDHS staff
    and other public and private human service providers are stationed
    within schools. Schools are selected based on the concentration of need
    experienced by families within the school's attendance area, and the
    school's AYP status. Public services offered through the county MDHS
    office are provided directly on-site at the school. At most FRC sites,
    MDHS case managers see more than half of the parents with children
    enrolled in the school on a regular basis because they are receiving
    some form of public assistance. Often, in areas of the state including
    Detroit, Highland Park, Flint, Saginaw, and Muskegon Heights, the
    proportion of families with regular contact with MDHS is over 90%. This
    results in regular contact between parents receiving assistance and the
    school without changing or adding any programs. As families come in to
    see their public assistance/ MDHS worker for routine case management or
    to address an emerging need, other issues can be addressed at the same
    time. To accomplish this MDHS-FRC leaders partner with school
    principals, social workers, and other school staff, along with
    community-based programs to form collaborative teams. These teams work
    together to increase service delivery integration between service
    providers within the school sites.
        MDHS-FRC leaders partner with school principals and other staff to
    make the most of regular contacts with families. Additionally, this
    ongoing relationship between families in need and MDHS translates into
    opportunities for the FRC partners to identify emerging trends and
    design specific strategies to address needs. Michigan has determined
    that this process has resulted in increased participation and improved
    outcomes for families in areas of service ranging from nutrition
    education and health promotion activities to home ownership
    initiatives.
        As FRC leadership develops, even more proactive strategies are
    identified. For example, the FRC at Durant Tuuri Mott School here in
    Flint identified the high rate of asthma among students as as
    significant barrier to attendance and academic achievement. FRC leaders
    designed a system to ensure that children who needed asthma medications
    were able to reliably receive it from health staff on site. This and
    other strategies developed by FRC leaders contributed to the school
    attendance rate soaring to 90%. Other centers have initiated parent
    workshops to train parents to support their children throughout the
    assessment process required by NCLB, including assisting parents in
    taking sample tests themselves so that they can help their children.
    The potential impact of creative strategies such as these is enormous,
    not just for children's academic success but for whole families in
    which parents may have resisted identifying barriers to academic
    excellence for themselves as well as their children.
        While the impact of FRCs on parental academic achievement has not
    been quantified, anecdotal evidence reveals many parents whose link to
    MDHS resulted in improved relationships with school staff and increased
    parental involvement. These relationships often serve as foundations
    for parents to address long-standing barriers to their own
    achievements. Parents who have resisted going back to school have done
    so after experiencing this process. Especially in middle schools, FRC
    staff often finds MDHS families in which the parents have little more
    education than their children, and then subsequently design activities
    to address both student and parent achievement. These activities
    include career fairs and high school information days where students
    and parents get information regarding high school completion and/or
    community college enrollment. In addition, FRC leaders engage corporate
    sponsors in their communities to support parents and children who
    challenge themselves to take the next step toward academic excellence
    by providing prizes for participation and achievement.
        In addition to leveraging resources to increase efficiency and
    create proactive strategies that address shared goals between
    departments, FRCs have a significant and positive impact on schools'
    ability to make AYP as required by NCLB. In 2005-06, schools that had
    previously failed to make AYP and which housed an FRC were more likely
    to make AYP enough years in a row to get out of AYP phases altogether
    (40% of FRC-linked schools who had previously been placed on the
    priority schools list for not making AYP subsequently made AYP enough
    years in a row to get off the list of priority schools compared to 10%
    of schools without a FRC).
        A NCLB reauthorization that is accompanied by more realistic levels
    of funding for school districts would greatly enhance the ability of
    districts to partner with MDHS to create Family Resource Centers.
    Currently, the process of starting a new center necessitates each local
    community going hat-in-hand to corporations and private funders to
    solicit backing needed to create a center. While in theory this may be
    a successful way to engage communities in school improvement, in
    practice it makes it nearly impossible to establish FRCs in the
    communities in which they are most needed. Increased funding for NCLB,
    especially Title I funds for districts, are essential. In addition, if
    state departments of education received increased funding targeted
    toward creating integrated service delivery systems within schools most
    in need, such as that included in Title X, Coordinated Services
    Projects, of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, there would
    be a reduction in the duplication of effort each new set of potential
    FRC partners experience as they work together toward creating a new
    site. Material assistance and technical support from the state
    departments of education could easily result in FRCs or other public
    service integration projects. Based on Michigan's experience, the
    number of schools ready to form partnerships to jointly address poverty
    reduction and education goals far outnumbers the amount of technical
    and material assistance available.
        Increased funding of NCLB, including funding set aside for the
    creation of integrated service delivery systems, would greatly enhance
    states' efforts to meet NCLB goals, and result in more efficient use of
    public resources aimed at assisting families in need.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Carol Shanahan, Teacher, Vern Van Y Elementary
                                     School

        Chairman Kildee, I am Carol Shanahan, a teacher at Vern Van Y
    Elementary School in Burton, MI, and I request that the following
    testimony be included in the record of the April 12, 2007 Subcommittee
    hearing held in Flint, Michigan.
        As a second grade teacher and a Reading Recovery teacher, I know
    that some children will not reach their potential if they do not have
    access to an early intervention program. Many children need to be
    serviced in literacy in the early grades in order to be successful
    learners. NCLB should require that all K-2 teachers receive intensive
    quality literacy training in college such as I received and continue to
    receive from Reading Recovery. Literacy training for teachers needs to
    be ongoing. It should require that all children struggling with
    literacy get the support they need as soon as possible.
        Lower class size is so important in the early grades, especially K-
    1. It is impossible to meet the needs of our students when you cannot
    give them the individual help they need. The larger the class size the
    harder it is to meet the demands made by NCLB and more importantly the
    needs of the students. Every time a student is added to my class list I
    spend more time on class management and paperwork, which takes away
    from planning and instruction. Do we want to spend the money on
    education or on prisons? We all know that many people in the prison
    population are unable to read. Which ends up costing society more in
    the long run?
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Vickie Turner, Instructor of Future Educators,
                            Ferris State University

        I would like to thank you for the opportunity of adding to your
    committee testimonies regarding NCLB. I was at the Hearing held in
    Flint Michigan on April 12, 2007 chaired by Mr. Kildee for `No Child
    Left Behind'
        My name is Vickie Turner. I have two Masters Degrees in Education.
    I am a retired Special Education Teacher of 30 years and a college
    instructor of future educators for Ferris State University, and Eastern
    Michigan University.
        A standardized test driven curriculum or educational system will
    never be successful in showing what our students are learning. A
    standardized test driven curriculum only celebrates what the students
    do not know. We are sadly becoming a nation wrapped up in how we look
    on paper, instead of, how well we react to, interact with and process
    information.
        These testing requirements under NCLB take away valuable classroom
    teaching time and devour our curriculums. Teachers must teach to a test
    rather than to what our students need from curriculums.
        We are losing students because schools are no longer teaching and
    challenging the young minds to investigate, work with and absorb
    knowledge. We are merely teaching to rote learning. No wonder our
    students are dropping out or sleeping through their education. Students
    are told to memorize this and that for the test but are never given the
    opportunity any more to work with their knowledge to make it permanent.
    We are graduating students who are not near the educational standards
    that once were in place. We have become a testing nation instead of a
    nation of learners and innovators.
        Our policy makers need to look at NCLB through the eyes of
    educators and students rather than a purely political view. These
    students are living breathing creative beings, not robots who dictate
    back information given them. By mandating NCLB at a national level,
    dictating what that means from a national level and then judging the
    results from a national level does not do justice to the quality of
    education we have district by district. National tested standards
    cannot take into account prior knowledge, environmental differences,
    cultural differences, transient populations, regional educational needs
    etc. Why would we pigeon hole and limit our educational system by only
    teaching and addressing one elite group. That is what a national
    standardized testing system does.
        NCLB is killing our educational system. Our talented young
    educators are leaving the field of education because it is a no win
    situation and they are frustrated. Our experienced master teachers are
    retiring earlier because they are being told that after all these years
    they either need more schooling to meet requirements or that their job
    depends on getting their failing students to suddenly spring to life
    and succeed, all while being handcuffed by teaching to a test that
    bores the life out of education.

              ``The educational practices we had in place in this country
            have produced educated people who have created and maintained
            the US's status as the #1 wealthiest and most powerful nation
            in the world for the greater part of the last century. We are
            the youngest 1st world nation * * * that is also the wealthiest
            and the most powerful. How is this legislation going to help us
            improve if all it is meant to do is LOWER the standard so
            everyone is seen as ``proficient''? (and it would LOWER the
            standard because someone with an IQ of 80 is mentally incapable
            of doing algebra, which is the lowest high school math course
            tested as an AYP course.)''
                                                  Shari Turner,
                                   High School Teacher, Huntingtown MD.

    In conclusion
        NCLB is forcing us as a nation to exclude the individual student in
    favor of the majority. It makes us only look toward one goal and forces
    us to use one path to show we achieved that goal. We as a nation have
    always prided ourselves on our diversity yet now we are being made to
    turn our backs on the creativity that makes education successful. How
    many Einsteins are we losing because they don't fit into the mold our
    national educational system has forced us to forge?
        In Theory No Child should ever be left behind. In practice, because
    of NCLB, we are leaving behind more than our children. We are leaving
    behind a successful and inviting educational system. There are ways of
    checking educational standards child by child to ensure our children
    are learning at their own rate. Children mature and learn at different
    rates why can't we allow that, as long as, we keep them moving forward
    in the learning process.
        Thank you for your time and attention. If there is ever any way I
    help this committee in the future please feel free to call on me.
        Here is something that tells so well how America feels about NCLB.
    It is from the internet and I do not know the author, but it says
    volumes.
    No Child Left Behind-The Basketball Version
        1. All teams must advance to the Sweet 16, and all will win the
    championship. If a team does not win the championship, they will be on
    probation until they are the champions and coaches will be held
    accountable.
        2. All kids will be expected to have the same basketball skills at
    the same time and in the same conditions. No exceptions will be made
    for interest in basketball, a desire to perform athletically, or
    genetic abilities or disabilities. All kids will play basketball at a
    proficient level.
        3. Talented players will be asked to practice on their own, without
    instructions. This is because the coaches will be using all their
    instructional time with the athletes who aren't interested in
    basketball, have limited athletic ability or whose parents don't like
    basketball.
        4. Games will be played year round, but statistics will only be
    kept in the 4th, 8th, and 11th games.
        5. This will create a New Age of sports where every school is
    expected to have the same level of talent and all teams will reach the
    same minimal goals. If no child gets ahead, then no child will be left
    behind.
                                     ______

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Whereupon, at 1:02 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]