[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.]