[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MAYOR AND SUPERINTENDENT PARTNERSHIPS IN EDUCATION: CLOSING THE
ACHIEVEMENT GAP
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JULY 17, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-102
__________
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
43-311 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 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) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
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 Senior Republican 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 [Vacancy]
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director
Sally Stroup, Republican Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 17, 2008.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ``Buck,'' Senior Republican Member,
Committee on Education and Labor........................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Miller, Hon. George, Chairman, Committee on Education and
Labor...................................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Letter from the National Alliance of Black School
Educators.............................................. 67
Statement of Witnesses:
Bloomberg, Hon. Michael R., Mayor, the City of New York...... 20
Prepared statement of.................................... 23
Questions for the record and responses submitted......... 70
Duncan, Arne, Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Public Schools 33
Prepared statement of.................................... 36
Questions for the record and responses submitted......... 77
``FY2008 Recruitment & Workforce Planning Initiatives''.. 83
Fenty, Hon. Adrian M., Mayor, District of Columbia........... 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
Questions for the record and responses submitted......... 87
Hall, Beverly L., Superintendent, Atlanta Public Schools..... 28
Prepared statement of.................................... 30
Questions for the record and responses submitted......... 89
Klein, Joel I., Chancellor, New York City Department of
Education.................................................. 24
Prepared statement of.................................... 27
Questions for the record and responses submitted......... 70
Rhee, Michelle, Chancellor, District of Columbia Public
Schools.................................................... 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Questions for the record and responses submitted......... 87
MAYOR AND SUPERINTENDENT
PARTNERSHIPS IN EDUCATION:
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP
----------
Thursday, July 17, 2008
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Education and Labor
Washington, DC
----------
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:12 a.m., in room
2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. George Miller
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Miller, Kildee, Payne, Woolsey,
Hinojosa, McCarthy, Tierney, Wu, Holt, Davis of California,
Davis of Illinois, Bishop of New York, Sarbanes, Hirono,
Altmire, Yarmuth, Hare, Clarke, Shea-Porter, McKeon, Castle,
Biggert, Platts, Kline, and Kuhl.
Staff present: Alice Cain, Senior Education Policy Advisor
(K-12); Lynne Campbell, Legislative Fellow for Education;
Alejandra Ceja, Senior Budget/Appropriations Analyst; Fran-
Victoria Cox, Staff Attorney; Adrienne Dunbar, Education Policy
Advisor; Sarah Dyson, Investigative Associate, Oversight;
Denise Forte, Director of Education Policy; David Hartzler,
Systems Administrator; Lloyd Horwich, Policy
Advisor,Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and
Secretary Education; Fred Jones, Staff Assistant, Education;
Ann-Frances Lambert, Special Assistant to Director of Education
Policy; Ricardo Martinez, Policy Advisor,Subcommittee on Higher
Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness; Stephanie
Moore, General Counsel; Alex Nock, Deputy Staff Director; Joe
Novotny, Chief Clerk; Rachel Racusen, Communications Director;
Meredith Regine, Junior Legislative Associate, Labor; Daniel
Weiss, Special Assistant to the Chairman; Margaret Young, Staff
Assistant, Education; Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director Stephanie
Arras, Minority Legislative Assistant; James Bergeron, Minority
Deputy Director of Education and Human Services Policy; Robert
Borden, Minority General Counsel; Chad Miller, Minority
Professional Staff; Susan Ross, Minority Director of Education
and Human Services Policy; Linda Stevens, Minority Chief Clerk/
Assistant to the General Counsel; and Sally Stroup, Minority
Staff Director.
Chairman Miller [presiding]. A quorum being present, the
hearing will come to order.
Today, the committee is conducting a hearing on mayor-
superintendent partnerships in education and closing the
achievement gap.
In recent years, one of the bright spots in education
reform in this country has been the strong interest mayors and
superintendents have taken to improve inner-city public
schools. The purpose of today's hearing is to learn more about
these admirable efforts and their successes in raising student
achievement across the board.
At a time when our nation faces extreme economic
challenges, we know that providing every child with a solid
education is the ticket to building a more competitive
workforce, a stronger economy, and a brighter future for our
nation.
For decades, America's public education system has not
served all children equally. Far too many children, especially
low-income and minority children, were allowed to fall through
the cracks. Many of us knew that this type of system was
unacceptable and a serious threat to our democracy.
Six years ago, we set out to close the growing student
achievement gap. We enacted the No Child Left Behind Act at the
federal level to increase accountability in our schools and to
ensure that no group of students could go ignored, and although
the law itself is in need of significant changes, it has
provided us with critical information on how our students are
learning.
We know now that while the achievement gap has narrowed
over the last 6 years, our schools and students are still not
making enough progress. We also know that our students are
falling behind students in other countries when it comes to
mastering the basic skills, like math, science, and reading. As
a nation, we cannot afford to continue on this path.
We know we need to do a better job of providing all
students with an excellent education and that we prepare them
to take the jobs of tomorrow, to be our next generation of
innovators, discoverers, and leaders.
Today, we will hear from the mayors and superintendents of
major U.S. cities about the innovative strategies they are
using to try and close the achievement gap among our students.
What is especially striking about the four cities represented
here today--New York City, Washington, Chicago, and Atlanta--is
that they all have had remarkable success with the very student
populations that No Child Left Behind is designed to help.
In Atlanta, 100 percent of the city's elementary schools
made Adequate Yearly Progress last year, even with 76 percent
of the students living in poverty.
In Chicago, a city where nearly 85 percent of the children
live in poverty, the number of students meeting, exceeding
expectations of the Illinois Standards Achievement Test rose by
23 percent to 69 percent proficiency in math over the past 2
years. Similarly, student achievement in reading comprehension
rose by 13 percent to 61 percent proficiency over the same
period.
In New York City, 74 percent of the students were
proficient in math this year, up from 57 percent last year, and
58 percent of the students were proficient in reading, up from
51 percent last year.
And here in D.C., elementary students increased their
proficiency in math by 11 percent last year and increased their
proficiency in reading by 8 percent.
None of these are small feats. As Congress considers how we
can best improve our federal education laws, we need to pay
attention to the impressive work that these members are doing
and how they are doing it, and most importantly what you have
learned along the way.
Keeping in mind that No Child Left Behind is a fundamental
civil rights law, we need to know what tools you have found to
be effective, what we can do to help empower, expand, and build
upon your successes. I think that we can all agree that nothing
is more important to making sure that every child in this
country, regardless of race or income, receives a world-class
public education.
And, again, I want to thank you for your time, your
expertise, and your dedication in appearing before the
committee today.
And with that, I would like to yield to Congressman McKeon,
the senior Republican on the committee, for his opening
statement.
[The statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, Chairman, Committee on
Education and Labor
Good morning and welcome.
In recent years, one of the bright spots in education reform in
this country has been the strong interest that mayors and
superintendents have taken to improve inner-city public schools. The
purpose of today's hearing is to learn more about these admirable
efforts, and their successes in raising student achievement across the
board.
At a time when our nation faces extreme economic challenges, we
know that providing every child with a solid education is the ticket to
building a more competitive workforce, a stronger economy, and a
brighter future.
For decades, America's public education system has not served all
children equally. Far too many children, especially low-income and
minority children, were allowed to fall through the cracks.
Many of us knew that this type of system was unacceptable--and a
serious threat to our democracy.
Six years ago, we set out to close this growing student achievement
gap. We enacted the No Child Left Behind Act to increase accountability
in our schools and ensure that no group of students could go ignored.
And although the law itself is in need of significant changes, it
has provided us with critical information on how our students are
learning.
We know now that while the achievement gap has narrowed over the
last six years, our schools and students are still not making enough
progress. We also know that our students are falling behind students in
other countries when it comes to mastering basic skills, like math,
science, and reading.
As a nation, we cannot afford to continue on this path.
We know we need to do a better job of providing all students with
an excellent education that will prepare them to take on the jobs of
tomorrow, to be our next great generation of innovators and leaders.
Today we will hear from the mayors and superintendents of major
U.S. cities about the innovative strategies they have used to close the
achievement gap among their students.
What is especially striking about the four cities represented here
today--New York City, Washington, D.C., Chicago, and Atlanta--is that
they have all had remarkable success with the very student populations
that No Child Left Behind was designed to help.
In Atlanta, 100 percent of the city's elementary schools made
adequate yearly progress last year, even with 76 percent of students
living in poverty.
In Chicago, a city where nearly 85 percent of children live in
poverty, the number of students meeting or exceeding expectations on
the Illinois Standards Achievement Test rose by 23 percent, to 69
percent proficiency in math over the past two years.
Similarly, student achievement in reading comprehension rose by 13
percent, to 61 percent proficiency over the same period.
In New York City, 74 percent of students were proficient in math
this year, up from 57 percent last year. And 58 percent of students
were proficient in reading, up from 51 percent last year.
And here in DC, elementary students increased their proficiency in
math by 11 percent last year, and increased their proficiency in
reading by 8 points.
None of these are small feats. As Congress considers how we can
best improve our federal education laws, we need to pay attention to
the impressive work you are doing, how you are doing it--and most
importantly--what you have learned along the way.
We need to know what tools you have found effective, and what we
can do to help empower, expand, and build upon your successes.
I think we can all agree that nothing is more important than making
sure that every child in this country--regardless of race or income--
receives a world-class public education.
I'd like to thank all of our witnesses for joining us.
I look forward to your testimony and learning more about how--
together--we can make this vision a reality for America's
schoolchildren.
Thank you.
______
Mr. McKeon. Thank you, Chairman Miller, and good morning.
It is a great privilege to be here among some of the most
fearless education reform leaders in the country, and lest
there be any doubt, fearlessness is exactly what we need from
education reformers. We need leaders willing to take a chance
on innovation over the status quo, leaders who are not afraid
to buck the establishment and put the interests of the students
ahead of the system.
Each one of our witnesses has risen to that challenge, and
it is with great excitement that we bring you here today to
share your success stories and offer your thoughts on systemic
reform. We have leaders from some of the largest and most
challenging school districts in the country, from New York to
Chicago and from Atlanta to right here in the nation's capital.
The school system here in D.C. has been particularly
troubling for many of us in Congress over the years, both
because of its proximity to the Capitol where we work each day
and because of its systemic struggles unmatched anywhere in the
country.
Here in D.C., we spend more and get less than anywhere else
in the country. For that reason, D.C. has been an ideal
incubator for reform. There is nothing to lose and everything
to gain by investing in these schools and testing innovative
strategies that will benefit students.
I have been particularly pleased by the success of the D.C.
Opportunity Scholarship Program which has proven beyond a
shadow of a doubt that parents are desperate for new
educational choices for their children. Today, some 1,900
children are attending the public or private school of their
parents' choosing.
Although we expect it to take years for measurable academic
gains to become evident, the early findings show that students
receiving Opportunity Scholarships have made gains in reading
and math. Their parents are much more satisfied with their new
schools, believing them to be safer and more productive
learning environments.
The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program is an integral
component of a much broader reform strategy. Along with the
scholarship program, we are investing in strategies to improve
the public school system and replicate high-performing charter
schools. Both of these tactics are essential for long-term
reform.
But neither of these approaches will provide the immediate
lifeline to children trapped in underperforming schools that
can be offered through a scholarship, and so neither of these
approaches would be complete without that essential third
element: the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program.
Of course, we know there are many ingredients necessary to
successful education reform, and I believe most of them are
rooted in the notion of parental empowerment and a students-
first mentality. Initiatives from tuition tax credits to
funding portability should all be part of our national dialogue
on educational reform.
This panel is extraordinarily qualified to discuss the
range of policies that are making a difference in their
schools. One of the common elements among the districts
represented is that they all recognize the importance of good
teachers. In fact, there are few factors that have a greater
impact on student academic achievement than the quality of
their teachers. I am anxious to hear about how these schools
are recruiting the best and the brightest and rewarding them
for their successes in the classroom.
There are so many cutting-edge strategies to reform our
schools that I could continue all morning, but, in the interest
of time and to give each of you as much of an opportunity to
testify as possible, I will conclude my remarks with this:
Education reform is one of the most difficult challenges facing
our nation's mayors and local leaders, but it is also one of
the most important.
Today, as we recognize the work being done, I hope it will
serve as a wakeup call about just how much work remains to
ensure that every child in America has access to the high-
quality education he or she deserves.
Chairman Miller, I want to thank you for holding this
important hearing, thank our witnesses for being here, and I
yield back.
[The statement of Mr. McKeon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Senior Republican
Member, Committee on Education and Labor
Thank you Chairman Miller, and good morning. It is a great
privilege to be here among some of the most fearless education reform
leaders in the country.
And lest there be any doubt, fearlessness is exactly what we need
from education reformers. We need leaders willing to take a chance on
innovation over the status quo. Leaders who aren't afraid to buck the
establishment and put the interests of the students ahead of the
system. Each one of our witnesses has risen to the challenge, and it is
with great excitement that we bring you here today to share your
success stories and offer your thoughts on systemic reform.
We have leaders from some of the largest and most challenging
school districts in the country, from New York to Chicago, and from
Atlanta to right here in the nation's capital.
The school system here in D.C. has been particularly troubling for
many of us in Congress over the years, both because of its proximity to
the Capitol where we work each day and because of its systemic
struggles, unmatched elsewhere in the country.
Here in D.C., we spend more and get less than anywhere else in the
country. For that reason, D.C. has been an ideal incubator for reform.
There is nothing to lose and everything to gain by investing in these
schools and testing innovative strategies that will benefit students.
I have been particularly pleased by the success of the D.C.
Opportunity Scholarship Program, which has proven beyond a shadow of a
doubt that parents are desperate for new educational choices for their
children. Today, some 1,900 children are attending the public or
private school of their parents' choosing. Although we expect it to
take years for measurable academic gains to become evident, the early
findings show that students receiving opportunity scholarships have
made gains in reading and math. Their parents are much more satisfied
with their new schools, believing them to be safer and more productive
learning environments.
The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program is an integral component
of a much broader reform strategy. Along with the scholarship program,
we are investing in strategies to improve the public school system and
replicate high-performing charter schools. Both of these tactics are
essential for long-term reform.
But neither of these approaches will provide the immediate lifeline
to children trapped in underperforming schools that can be offered
through a scholarship. And so neither of these approaches would be
complete without that essential third element, the D.C. Opportunity
Scholarship Program.
Of course, we know there are many ingredients necessary to
successful education reform, and I believe most of them are rooted in
the notion of parental empowerment and a ``students first'' mentality.
Initiatives from tuition tax credits to funding portability should all
be part of our national dialogue on education reform.
This panel is extraordinarily qualified to discuss the range of
policies that are making a difference in their schools. One of the
common elements among the districts represented is that they all
recognize the importance of good teachers. In fact, there are few
factors that have a greater impact on student academic achievement than
the quality of their teachers. I am anxious to hear about how these
schools are recruiting the best and the brightest, and rewarding them
for their successes in the classroom.
There are so many cutting-edge strategies to reform our schools
that I could continue all morning. But in the interest of time, and to
give each of you as much of an opportunity to testify as possible, I
will conclude my remarks with this:
Education reform is one of the most difficult challenges facing our
nation's mayors and local leaders. But it is also one of the most
important. Today, as we recognize the work being done, I hope it will
serve as a wakeup call about just how much work remains to ensure that
every child in America has access to the high-quality education he or
she deserves.
Chairman Miller, I want to thank you for holding this important
hearing and I yield back.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much.
And pursuant to Committee Rule 12(a), any member may submit
an opening statement in writing which will be made part of the
record of this hearing.
And now I would like to introduce our witnesses.
First will be Adrian Fenty who is the mayor of Washington,
D.C., and before his election as mayor, Mayor Fenty worked as
the lead attorney for the D.C. Council Committee on Education,
Libraries, and Recreation. He was elected to Ward 4 council
seat in 1999 and then was elected to mayor in 2006--and my
colleagues will appreciate this--he was the first person in
history to win all 142 precincts in the District, and that is
quite a feat. We all want to win every precinct in our
district.
Since he has become mayor, he has made it very clear to the
citizens of D.C. that their public schools are his highest
priority and reorganizing the Department of Health and
reforming child welfare and emergency medical services, all
which come together around our children in the public schools.
Michelle Rhee is the chancellor of the D.C. schools, and
she was earlier recruited by Teach for America to teach in
Harlem Park, Baltimore, for 3 years. She founded the New
Teachers Project, a non-profit organization that helps recruit
and train new teachers for high-needs schools. In 2007, Mayor
Fenty appointed her to the chancellor of the schools, and she
has since implemented multiple initiatives aimed at improving
Washington, D.C. public schools.
My colleague, Yvette Clarke, will introduce our next two
witnesses, Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Chairman Miller.
To Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon, and my
colleagues, it is my honor to present to you Michael R.
Bloomberg.
Michael R. Bloomberg is the 108th mayor of the City of New
York. He attended Johns Hopkins University where he paid his
tuition by taking loans and working as a parking lot attendant
during the summer.
In 1966, he was hired by Solomon Brothers to work on Wall
Street after having received an MBA at Harvard Business School.
In 1988, Solomon was acquired, and he was squeezed out by a
merger.
Chairman Miller. Poor guy. [Laughter.]
Ms. Clarke. He began a small startup company called
Bloomberg LLP in 1988, and, today, Bloomberg LLP has over
250,000 subscribers to its financial news and information
service. Headquartered in New York City, the company has 9,500
employees in more than 130 cities worldwide.
He officially entered public life in 2001 when he entered
the race for mayor of the City of New York. His election came
just 2 months after the tragic attack of 9/11 at a time when
many believed that crime would return, business would flee, and
New York might never recover.
In his first term, Mayor Bloomberg cut crime 20 percent,
created jobs by supporting small businesses, unleashed a
building boom of affordable housing, expanded parks and worked
to revitalize the waterfront, implemented ambitious public
health strategies, including the successful ban on smoking in
restaurants and bars, expanded support for the community arts
organizations, and improved the efficiency of government.
In 2005, Mayor Bloomberg was reelected by a diverse
coalition of support that stretched across the political
spectrum. In his second term, while balancing the budget and
driving unemployment to a record low, Mayor Bloomberg has taken
on a number of new challenges.
He launched an innovative program to combat poverty that
encourages work and makes work pay. He has undertaken a far-
reaching campaign to fight global warming and prepare New York
for an estimated million more residents by 2030, and as co-
founder of a bipartisan coalition of more than 200 mayors from
every region of the country, Mayor Bloomberg is working to keep
illegal guns out of the hands of criminals and off the city
streets.
Mayor Bloomberg is the father of two daughters, Emma and
Georgina.
It is, indeed, my honor to present to you, my colleagues,
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member McKeon, Joel I. Klein.
Joel Klein became New York City school chancellor in July
of 2002 after serving in the highest levels of government and
business. As chancellor, he oversees more than 1,450 schools
with over 1.1 million students, 136,000 employees, and a $15
billion operating budget.
Mr. Klein's comprehensive reform program, Children First,
is transforming the troubled public school system that existed
when the mayor was elected into a system of great schools.
Before Mr. Klein became chancellor, he was chairman and
executive officer of Bertelsmann, Inc., and chief U.S. liaison
officer to Bertelsmann AG from January of 2001 to July of 2002.
Bertelsmann, one of the world's largest media companies, has
annual revenues exceeding $20 billion and employs over 76,000
people in 54 countries.
From 1997 to 2001, Mr. Klein was an assistant attorney
general in charge of the U.S. Department of Justice's antitrust
division. Mr. Klein was widely credited with transforming the
antitrust division into one of the Clinton administration's
greatest successes. He also served as acting assistant attorney
general and as the antitrust division's principal duty
assistant attorney general. His appointment to the U.S. Justice
Department came after Klein served 2 years, 1993 through 1995,
as deputy counsel to President William J. Clinton.
Mr. Klein began his career as a law clerk, first to Chief
Justice David Bazelon on the U.S. Court of Appeals of the D.C.
Circuit from 1973 to 1974 and then Justice Lewis Powell on the
U.S. Supreme Court from 1974 to 1975. He next worked in the
public interest law firm, the Mental Health Law Project, in
1975 to 1976. For the following 5 years, he was an associate
and partner at the law firm of Rogovin, Stern & Huge, from 1976
to 1981.
Active in community work, Mr. Klein has participated in Big
Brothers, served as chairman of the board of the Green Door, a
pioneer community-based treatment program for mentally ill
residents of the District of Columbia, and as the treasurer for
the World Federation of Mental Health.
During a leave of absence from law school--we are going
back here. [Laughter.]
Well, we just thought it was so interesting. Let me----
Chairman Miller [continuing]. Longer than our witnesses.
Ms. Clarke. I am going to close. I am going to close.
During a leave of absence from law school in 1969, he
studied at New York University's School of Education and later
taught math to sixth graders at a public school in Queens.
That gives you a full picture, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member, of the dynamism of our chancellor, Chancellor Klein.
Chairman Miller. I did not hear anything about his
preschool experience----
[Laughter.]
Ms. Clarke. Thank you, my colleagues.
Chairman Miller. Our next witness will be Dr. Beverly Hall
who was appointed superintendent of Atlanta Public Schools in
1999. Born in Jamaica, Dr. Hall immigrated to the United States
upon completion of her high school education. Dr. Hall
previously served as superintendent of the Newark Public
Schools in New Jersey. She also served as deputy chancellor for
instruction in New York City and as principal of two New York
City public schools. She was recently honored with the Council
of Great City Schools National Urban Superintendent of the Year
Award.
And my colleague, Mr. Davis, will introduce Arne Duncan,
the CEO of the Chicago city schools, and we will stop at high
school.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
Ranking Member McKeon, members of the committee.
Chicago is not quite as big as New York and, therefore, my
introduction is not quite as long.
But since 1992, Arne Duncan has been an integral part of
the education scene in Chicago, the third largest city in the
United States of America. Prior to joining the public schools,
Arne directed the Ariel Education Initiative established by
John Rogers, founder and head of Ariel Capital, one of the
nation's most successful businessmen.
In 1988, Arne joined the Chicago school system and, in
2001, he was appointed CEO. In partnership with the mayor of
the City of Chicago and the Chicago City Council, the business
community, colleges and universities, other educational
programs and institutions, local communities, and our unique
system of local school councils, Arne has transformed education
in Chicago. Using a concept of smaller class sizes, smaller
schools, charter schools, interaction with local communities,
innovative approaches to recruiting teachers, providing
opportunities for teachers to grow and develop, education has
become a citadel of hope in Chicago.
Arne is intimately involved and associated with the
communities where the schools are. It is not that uncommon to
see him at a block club meeting or one of the local churches or
community organization meetings or out on the school grounds
involved in a pickup basketball game with some of the young
persons.
I think that this approach has made him as successful as he
has been. He provides not only leadership, but motivation and
inspiration, and it is my pleasure, Mr. Chairman, to have him
here today and introduce him to all of you.
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much.
And I want to welcome all of our witnesses.
The Chair is going to use its privileges to recognize two
young women from my district who just came into the committee
room to listen to part of this hearing, Cara Chin and Emma Lynn
Tringali from Benicia High School in California.
Welcome. Stand up. Yes. Come on. There you go. Thank you
very much for being here. [Applause.]
I would say that the purpose of this hearing is, as you
will hear from Chancellor Rhee, to make sure that our education
system is focused on the students and not just on the adults.
So welcome, and I hope you enjoy your tour of Washington, D.C.
Yes? What we are going to do is a little bit different this
morning. A number of years ago before she was speaker, the
speaker took us to Stanford University when Democrats were
working on an innovative agenda, and we listened to the CEOs of
the biotech companies and the high-tech companies and the
venture capital community about education, about what it means
to create an innovative agenda, and five members of Congress
sat and listened to these individuals for over 2 hours until
one of the CEOs raised a hand and said it was the first time
they had ever been in a room with Members of Congress where
they listened as opposed to talking.
We have a system here. When you begin to speak, a green
light will go on, and then a yellow light will go on, which
usually is after 4 minutes, and then a red light when we would
like you to sum up your testimony. We are going to be a little
liberal with the lights because I think it is very important
that this committee hear about not only your accomplishments,
but what it is you think the federal government could do to
better deploy its assets, its resources, as I said, to
reinforce and expand the changes that you and other school
districts have brought about to bring about this growth in
achievement and the closing of the gap. So I think it is very
important that we hear from you.
We will then go to questions from members, but I want to
make sure that we--this was a difficult hearing to assemble,
given the busy lives of everybody at the witness table. So that
is how I would like to begin, and we have discussed this with
the minority, and I think there is agreement on this.
So, Mayor Fenty, we are going to begin with you.
STATEMENT OF HON. ADRIAN M. FENTY, MAYOR, THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
Mayor Fenty. Thank you very much, Chairman Miller, Ranking
Member McKeon, and distinguished committee members.
I am extremely honored to appear before you in the company
of my esteemed fellow mayor and friend Michael Bloomberg and
with representatives from the great cities of Atlanta and
Chicago and New York. These are four of the great chancellors
in the country right now.
On behalf of the residents of the District of Columbia, I
would like to briefly talk to you about the daunting scholastic
hurdles district students face, and what their government and
community have done and continue to do to provide them the
educational opportunities they both need and deserve.
I assumed the mayoralty of the District of Columbia in
January 2007 with a determination and a mandate to completely
transform a school system that spent more per pupil than any
other system in the country, yet languished at or near the
bottom of every national measure of academic achievement.
Simply put, the District of Columbia was failing its children.
Many doctoral dissertations analyzing the merits of
competing educational theories could be written to explain this
failure, but, at its heart, the explanation was frustratingly
simple: zero accountability. Because the multilayer bureaucracy
created plenty of places for the buck to stop, we were caught
in a never-ending cycle of finger-pointing and blame.
In municipal government, if the city fails to pick up the
garbage, the mayor knows exactly which member of his or her
Cabinet is answerable and what steps need to be taken to
address the problem. Yet, when it came to perhaps the most
vital charge of municipal affairs, the future of our children,
no one could be held to account. As counterintuitive as it
sounds, the mayor had absolutely no say whatsoever in the
administration of the school system of the city.
My approach was, in objective terms, confoundingly simple:
Just as much as the mayor is accountable for keeping the
streets clear of snow, he or she must be responsible for
ensuring that the city's children are afforded the very best
life skills and educational resources that the nation's capital
ought to provide them, and, if the mayor failed in this charge,
he or she then must accept the blame and the consequences.
I then selected a proven educational maverick and
innovator, Michelle Rhee, as the first-ever chancellor of the
District of Columbia Public Schools, and we got to work
performing such radical yet obvious tasks as ensuring timely
delivery of textbooks to appropriate classrooms, clearing out
warehouses where textbooks and teaching supplies lay unused
while our teachers were spending their own money to buy these
same supplies, and establishing for the first time an
integrated recordkeeping system that tracked school records--
all four million pieces of paper that had previously been
strewn on the floor in a storage room at our central
administration offices.
And in the short time that we have been running the school
system, we have recruited the business community to participate
in a school cleanup program, begun an intensive facilities
construction program to repair buildings that have been
dilapidated for decades, and hired an ombudsman as a resource
for parents needing help.
We have made the tough decision to close or consolidate 23
underenrolled schools to best utilize our resources. We
installed more than 6,300 computers in schools around the city,
created a Saturday tutoring program for our children that
needed extra help. We have prepared the restructuring process
for 27 schools to begin the process of helping failing schools
achieve adequate yearly progress as required by the federal No
Child Left Behind Act.
There truly also is a sense in the streets of this city, in
the homes and the classrooms, that we are all in this together.
Parents, teachers and, most of all, students truly understand
that the bar has now been raised. But if more has been
invested, it is because more is being expected. Our students
seem to understand this and they have delivered.
I am extremely proud to be able to say that in the 13
months since taking over the schools, we have already made
dramatic, meaningful, lasting changes. We have seen impressive
gains in reading and math scores for our elementary and
secondary students. We have brought innovative reforms to
staffing and personnel, including a framework for outstanding
teachers to trade tenure for bonuses based on student
achievement that will make them some of the highest-paid
teachers in the country.
This fall, we will take our first steps toward a
comprehensive school staffing model that puts art, music, and
physical education teachers, nurses, and counselors, and other
key staff in every school building. We have developed an
individualized reform plan for each of the schools that is in
restructuring status under No Child Left Behind.
And we are also making tremendous progress on facilities
improvements. Students must get the message that they can be
successful in school and we are committed to their success by
providing appropriate environments for learning.
Mr. Chairman, you may know that I spend a few weekends a
year taking part in marathons and triathlons and this type of
thing. We have done a great deal in our first year in charge of
the schools, but I look at our work so far as just the warm-up.
We have much further to go.
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon, and other members
of the committee and really of the entire Congress, because of
the District of Columbia's unique status, we have had to come
to the Congress for support, both in getting our initial
authorizing legislation passed and additional things along the
way. I personally want to thank you and all of the Members of
Congress for their support. It has truly made a difference in a
short period of time in the lives of the students of the
District of Columbia.
This concludes my prepared remarks, and I am happy to
answer any questions.
[The statement of Mayor Fenty follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Adrian M. Fenty, Mayor, District of Columbia
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon and distinguished committee
members: I am honored to appear before you in the company of my
esteemed fellow mayor and friend Mike Bloomberg and with
representatives from the great cities of Atlanta and Chicago. On behalf
of the residents of the District of Columbia, I would like to briefly
talk to you about the daunting scholastic hurdles District students
face, and what their government and community have done and continue to
do to provide them the educational opportunities they need and deserve.
Accountability
I assumed the mayoralty of the District of Columbia in January 2007
with a determination to completely transform a school system that spent
more per pupil than any other system in the country, yet languished at
or near the bottom of every national measure of academic achievement.
Simply put, the District of Columbia was failing its children.
Many doctoral dissertations analyzing the merits of competing
educational theories could be written to explain this failure, but, at
its heart, the explanation was frustratingly simple: Zero
accountability. Because the multi-layer bureaucracy created plenty of
places for the buck to stop, we were caught in a never-ending cycle of
finger pointing and blame.
In municipal government, if the city fails to pick up garbage, the
mayor knows exactly which member of his or her cabinet is answerable,
and what steps need to be taken to address the problem; yet, when it
came to perhaps the most vital charge of municipal affairs--the future
of our children--no one could be held to account. As counterintuitive
as it sounds, the mayor had absolutely no say whatsoever in the
administration of the school system of the city.
I was determined to ensure an immediate and decisive end to the
cycle of blame. My approach was, in objective terms, confoundingly
simple: just as much as the mayor is accountable for keeping the
streets clear of snow, he or she should--and must--be responsible for
ensuring that the city's children are afforded the very best life
skills and educational resources that the nation's capital ought to
provide them. And, if the mayor failed in this charge, he or she must
accept the blame and consequences.
I then selected a proven educational maverick and innovator,
Michelle Rhee, as the first-ever Chancellor of the District of Columbia
Public Schools, and we got to work performing such radical, yet obvious
tasks as ensuring timely delivery of textbooks to appropriate
classrooms, clearing out warehouses where text books and teaching
supplies lay unused while our teachers were spending their own money to
buy these same supplies, and establishing--for the first time--an
integrated record-keeping system that tracked school records. Records,
all 4 million pieces of paper, that had previously been strewn on the
floor in a storage room at our central administration offices.
Results of Reform
There truly is a sense in the streets, homes and classrooms of this
city that we are all in this together. Parents, teachers and, most of
all, students, truly understand that the bar has been raised. But if
more has been invested, it is because more is being expected. Our
students seem to understand this and they have delivered.
I'm extremely proud to be able to say that in the 13 months since
taking over the schools, we've already made dramatic, meaningful,
lasting changes. We've seen impressive gains in reading and math scores
for our elementary and secondary students. We've brought innovative
reforms to staffing and personnel, including a framework for
outstanding teachers to trade tenure for bonuses--based on student
achievement--that will make them some of the highest-paid teachers in
the United States.
Next Steps
This fall, we'll take our first steps toward a comprehensive school
staffing model that puts art, music and physical education teachers,
nurses and counselors, and other key staff in every school building.
We've made the tough decision to close or consolidate under-enrolled
schools to do this. We've developed an individualized reform plan for
each of the schools that is in restructuring status under the No Child
Left Behind Act. We're also making tremendous progress on facilities
improvements. Students must get the message that they can be successful
in school and that we're committed to their success by providing
appropriate environments for learning.
Mr. Chairman, you may know that I spend a few weekends a year
taking part in marathons and triathlons. We've done a great deal in our
first year in charge of the schools, but I look at this work as just
the warm-up. We have much, much further to go.
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon, and other members of the
Committee, I want to thank you for your support and for your interest
in urban education. I look forward to working together to ensure a
prosperous future for generations of District of Columbia students.
This concludes my prepared remarks, and I'm happy to answer any
questions.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Ms. Rhee?
STATEMENT OF MICHELLE RHEE, CHANCELLOR, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Ms. Rhee. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon, and
members of the committee.
I am honored to testify today about mayoral governance and
closing the achievement gap. Considering the great challenges
of D.C. Public Schools, we are fortunate to be the new kids on
the mayoral governance block, and I am grateful to the leaders
in New York and Chicago who have created incredibly strong
models for mayoral governance. We have already been able to
apply their lessons for reform to the unique needs and promise
of Washington, D.C.
I have been proud to work with urban public school systems
across the country for the last 15 years and for 1 year now as
the chancellor of the D.C. Public Schools. Last summer, I
entered a system that showed a 70 percentage point gap in
achievement between our core minority students and our
wealthier white students. We are the only district in the
country on high-risk status with the Department of Education,
and only 9 percent of our entering freshmen class graduate from
college within 5 years.
I entered a system in which one-third of our schools had
proficiency rates lower than 20 percent in either reading or
math. In other words, four out of five students in those
schools, or about 14,000 children, were not even meeting the
most basic levels of proficiency. In a district that is 81
percent African-American, this is one of the greatest
institutionalized injustices imaginable.
The old ways of addressing this longstanding injustice have
not been working. No matter how difficult, the solutions to
these problems must be radical and unprecedented.
Many have asked me why, considering the severe dysfunction
of the system, I would take on such a challenge. In fact, when
Mayor Fenty first asked me about the possibility of my
appointment as chancellor, I declined. But it was not for the
reasons that you might expect.
I have met enough students in this district to know that
their proficiency levels do not reflect their ability. I know
firsthand from speaking and working with students that our poor
and minority kids have the aptitude that rivals anyone. Rather,
I knew that I would not be able to create a system that was
strong and just if I had to bow to the adult and political
priorities that have prevented progress for children for years.
I was not willing to lead a system that asked children to wait
another patient moment while adult priorities and timelines
diminished students' life outcomes.
When I raised this concern with the mayor, his response was
clear and immediate. Education was his first and highest
priority. He would back our students every step of the way, mo
matter what the political cost. I knew I was talking to someone
who knew that the health and vitality of the city was dependent
on the quality of education it delivered to its children, whose
skills would be critical for driving the city's progress in
future years.
Now, after 1 year as chancellor under the mayoral
governance structure, I see even more clearly that it takes
tremendous courage to stand by this kind of commitment. The
deepest and most far-reaching results will be seen long after a
leader has left office. With this in mind, placing self-
interest and preservation behind student needs may be the most
difficult and human challenge of every publicly elected
official. But to truly honor the letter and spirit of Brown vs.
Board of Education, it is absolutely necessary.
I can unequivocally say that without mayoral governance and
without a mayor who is willing to prioritize educational reform
no matter how muddy the political waters become, we would not
have been able to achieve what we have in the past year in D.C.
Public Schools.
For years in school districts across the country, school
boards, sometimes led by principled and competent officials,
have had difficulty making deep reforms that have equalized
education. They are bound by the political tug-of-wars that
block swift action.
Many superintendents have similar ideas to mine regarding
school policy and education reform. In most cases, they know
the same best practices that I do and they know the research
that tells us what will be most effective, and they also know
that they would apply these practices to meet their own
district's needs. But they do not have the adequate authority
to assess their students' needs and take action to meet those
needs.
They spend much of their time jockeying with school boards
who are as bound to politics as they are to the interests of
children. Despite good intentions and the hard work of
competent professionals over the years, this structure is one
of the reasons that 54 years after desegregation we still
struggle to achieve justice in education.
What is it about this governance structure that can enable
us to change the tide?
First, unlike most superintendents, I report to a boss who
knocks the barriers out of the way. He runs political
interference when necessary and has not flinched once in
supporting a decision that I felt was in the best interests of
kids. Under mayoral governance, I believe we can finally
reverse the longstanding failures of urban public education. In
many ways, D.C. is a microcosm of urban public education
systems across the country. As our most pressing challenges
exist on a national level, reform here can be used as a model
across the country.
Second, one of the most striking challenges we face in
Washington, D.C., and in other urban districts is the complete
and utter lack of accountability. This year, I met students who
appealed to me about teachers who did not show up to class. On
one occasion, one of my staff members took a call from a
teacher who had applied to teach summer school. After 20
minutes of conversation, the teacher told my staff member,
``Hold on. I have to go dismiss my kids.'' And he knew at the
time of this phone that he was talking to a member of the
chancellor's staff.
In another example in the fall, I learned that one of our
employees had failed to fill out one form for a special
education child, and for another child, had failed to conduct a
meeting. Her mistakes resulted in a half-a-million dollar cost
to the system when by law we had to provide those students with
private placements.
I called that employee into my office to ask her what had
happened. I said, you know, ``Tell me a little bit about why,
because you failed to fill out the form for one child and you
failed to have a meeting for another child, you cost this
district a half-a-million dollars,'' and she replied to me,
``You need to understand that I have a very difficult job, I
have too much to do, and sometimes things are going to fall
through the cracks.''
I replied to her, ``Well, no, you need to understand that
if you are going to have this job, you have to take personal
responsibility for ensuring that everything within your job
purview gets done and gets done well. If you are going to take
the paycheck home every 2 weeks, you have to take that on.''
And she looked at me very puzzled, and she said, ``Well, that
is not very fair.''
So this is the kind of culture that we were actually
dealing with in the public schools, and, at that time, I did
not have the authority to make this employee and others
accountable for meeting their job responsibilities. As a
result, the mayor and I lobbied for a change in the law that
would allow us to convert central office school district
employees into at-will employees. With the support of the D.C.
City Council, we became better able to ensure that our central
office employees are now working within the best interest of
students.
Also this year, we created a new performance evaluation
system because many employees who had been with DCPS for years
had never formally been evaluated. Already the combination of
these two actions has begun to change the culture to one of
accountability and professional striving.
Third, like many other school districts, DCPS has
historically had a culture driven more by politics and adult
concerns than by the needs of children. This tension is
especially clear during the discussions of school closings and
consolidations.
In D.C., the previous superintendent, after an extensive
period of community engagement, released a Master Education
Plan in which multiple collaborators concluded that due to
underenrollment, it was necessary to close schools. The
community agreed that it would save the system millions of
dollars that could be redirected towards classrooms.
Yet even for schools that are not performing at high
levels, few families wanted their schools to close, and because
elected officials must often serve their constituents in their
particular ward, even in cities led by mayoral governance, a
debate ensues in which everyone agrees that schools must close,
but few politicians want to close schools in their own
jurisdictions.
Fortunately, with the backing of our mayor, we were able to
address this underenrollment by effectively closing 23 schools
in the District and redirecting those resources for next school
year. Next year, for the first time in the history of
Washington, D.C. Public Schools, every single school in the
District will have a librarian, a music teacher, an art
teacher, and a physical education teacher.
In the years to come, I am confident that we can turn our
children's potential into achievement. Due to much hard work in
our schools this year, and with greater authority to act on and
build upon the strong foundations built by those before me, our
achievement gap between African-American and Caucasian students
in 1 year has decreased by 6 points in reading and 5 points in
math. The gap between Hispanic and Caucasian students has
decreased 8 points in reading and 7 in math. And in one school,
Lafayette Elementary, we have decreased the achievement gap
between African-American and Caucasian students by 19
percentage points.
In the year before I became chancellor, 52 schools had
raised their math and reading scores over the course of 1 year.
Considering the significant systemic challenges that we saw,
when we set our performance goals, we really wanted just to see
a movement in that number of plus 57. We actually increased it
to 99 this past year. One hundred and seventeen of our schools
have increased their math scores, and 110 have increased their
reading scores.
The number of schools with proficiency rates below 20
percent has been cut almost in half, decreasing from 50 to 29.
Some schools have even doubled or tripled their average reading
and math scores. While we still have significant challenges
ahead, this kind of growth shows promise for the reforms that
mayoral governance has enabled.
To further these gains and decrease the achievement gap, we
must continue to increase the level of accountability for
everyone in the system, including teachers. There is no other
profession that simultaneously requires the most competent and
innovative professionals and at the same time can discourage
these professionals from bringing their gifts to our kids.
We must be able to significantly reward teachers who are
successful and to exit those teachers who, even with the
correct supports, are unable to increase student achievement
and academic growth. We can do this by working closely with our
teachers' union officials to create the contracts that will
support these goals.
When we consider the difficulty of what we were asking
teachers to do and the consequences to our students if we do
not do those, it actually puzzled me that the issue of
rewarding teachers for their success rather than seniority is a
controversial one. Quality teachers in urban districts
successfully raise academic achievement results in the face of
poverty, violence, high rates of AIDS and other STDs, low
expectations, obesity, teen pregnancy, and other issues that
enter our schools with our children. We should not be afraid to
reward those who meet the very high demands we place upon them.
Without investing in our teachers by rewarding them in a
tangible, meaningful way, we make it very difficult for
districts like ours to attract and retain the best teachers who
can close the achievement gap.
We have seen through the years that desegregation has not
been enough to bring the racial justice to education that we
need. It has not yet become the great equalizer that Horace
Mann intended public education to be. As we work to become what
he envisioned for public education in this country, this year,
we are introducing the most dramatic and rapid changes this
system has seen since the desegregation of our schools.
If there has been one complaint that I have heard most
frequently since I started, it is that we are moving too
quickly. But our children have been waiting since long before
1954 for a just, challenging, and equal public education
system. With mayoral governance under a mayor who is willing to
make the education of the district's young people the number
one priority, we can create accountability in systems that have
not seen it before, we can support principals and teachers in
setting high expectations for students, and we can ensure that
we have the tools to meet those expectations. In D.C. and
across the country, we can deliver high-quality public
education to students that is theirs by right.
Thank you for your support, for your commitment to closing
the achievement gap in D.C. and across the country, and I am
happy to answer your questions.
[The statement of Ms. Rhee follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michelle Rhee, Chancellor, District of Columbia
Public Schools
Good afternoon, Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon and members
of the Committee. I am honored to testify today about mayoral
governance and closing the achievement gap. Considering the great
challenges of DC Public Schools, we are fortunate to be the `new kids'
on the mayoral governance block. I am grateful to the leaders in New
York and Chicago who have created strong models for mayoral governance.
We have already been able to apply their lessons for reform to the
unique needs and promise of Washington, DC.
I have been proud to work with urban public school systems across
the country for the past 15 years, and for one year as chancellor of
the District of Columbia Public Schools. Last summer I entered a system
that showed a 70% achievement gap in some of our schools. We are the
only district in `high risk' status with the Department of Education,
and only 9% of our entering freshmen graduate from college within 9
years of beginning high school. I entered a system in which one-third
of our schools have proficiency rates below 20% in either reading or
math. In other words, four out of five students in those schools--about
14,000 children--were not even meeting the most basic level of
proficiency. In a district that is 81 % African-American, this is one
of the greatest institutionalized injustices imaginable. The old ways
of addressing this long-standing injustice have not been working. No
matter how difficult, the solutions to this problem must be radical and
unprecedented.
Many have asked me why, considering the severe dysfunction of the
system, I would take on such a challenge. In fact, when Mayor Fenty
first raised the possibility of my appointment as chancellor, I
declined; but it was not for the reasons you might expect. I have met
enough students to know that their proficiency levels do not reflect
their ability. I know first-hand from speaking and working with
students that our poor and minority students have aptitude that rivals
anyone. Rather, I knew that I would not be able to create a system that
was strong and just if I had to bow to the adult and political
priorities that have prevented progress for children for years. I was
not willing to lead a system that asked children to wait another
patient minute while adult priorities and timelines diminished
students' life chances. When I raised this concern with the mayor, his
response was clear and immediate. Education was his first and highest
priority. He would back our students every step of the way, whatever
the political cost. I knew I was talking to someone who knew that the
health and vitality of a city depends upon the quality of education it
delivers to its children, whose skills will be critical for driving the
city's progress in future years.
Now, after one year as chancellor under a mayoral governance
structure, I see even more clearly that it takes enormous courage to
stand by this commitment. The deepest and most far-reaching results
will be seen long after a leader has left office. With this in mind,
placing self-interest and preservation behind students' needs may be
the most difficult and human challenge of every publicly elected
official. But to truly honor the letter and spirit of Brown vs. the
Board of Education, it is absolutely necessary. I can unequivocally say
that without mayoral governance, and without a mayor who is willing to
prioritize educational reform no matter how muddy the political waters
become, we would not have been able to achieve what we have achieved in
DCPS this year.
For years in school districts across the country, school boards led
by principled and competent officials have had difficulty making deep
reforms that have equalized education. They are bound by the political
tug-of-wars that block swift action. Many superintendents have ideas
similar to mine regarding school policy and education reform. In most
cases they know the same best practices that research tells us will be
most effective, and they know how they would apply these practices to
meet their own district's needs. But they do not have adequate
authority to assess their students' needs and take action to meet those
needs. They spend much of their time jockeying with school boards who
are as bound to politics as they are to the needs of children. Despite
good intentions and the hard work of competent professionals over the
years, this structure is one of the reasons that 54 years after
desegregation we still struggle to achieve justice in education.
What is it about this governance structure that can enable us to
change the tide? First, unlike many other superintendents, I report to
a boss who knocks barriers out of the way. He runs political
interference when necessary and has not flinched once in supporting a
decision I felt was best for students. Under mayoral governance I
believe we can finally reverse long-standing failures of urban public
education. In many ways DC is a microcosm of urban public education
systems across the country: as our most pressing challenges exist on a
national level, reform here can be used as a model for the country.
Second, one of the most striking challenges we face in DCPS and in
other urban districts is an utter lack of accountability. This year I
met students who appealed to me about teachers who did not show up to
class. On another occasion, one of my staff members took a call from a
teacher who had applied to teach summer school. After 20 minutes of
conversation he told my staff member, ``Hold on, I have to dismiss my
class.'' This was a person who knew he was talking to someone in the
chancellor's office.
In another example, in the fall I learned that an employee had
failed to fill out a form for one of our special education students,
and to conduct a meeting with another. Her mistakes resulted in a half-
million dollar cost to the system when by law the students had to
receive private placements. I called in the employee and asked her what
happened. She told me ``You need to understand. I'm a very busy person.
Sometimes things fall through the cracks.'' I explained that this
student's placement was under her job responsibility, and that if she
did not feel up to these responsibilities then she may want to consider
another job. She responded that this was ``not fair.'' At the time I
did not have the authority to make this employee and others,
accountable for meeting their job responsibilities.
As a result, we lobbied for a change in the law that would convert
central office employees to `at-will' status. With the support of the
DC Council we became better able to ensure that our central office
employees are working in the best interest of students. Also this year,
we created a new performance evaluation system. Many employees had been
with DCPS for years and had never been formally evaluated. Already the
combination of these two actions has begun to change the culture to one
of accountability and professional striving.
Third, like many other school districts, DCPS also has historically
had a culture driven more by politics and adult concerns than by the
needs of children. This tension is especially clear during discussions
of school closings and consolidations. In DCPS, the previous
superintendent--after an extensive period of community engagement--
released a Master Education Plan, in which multiple collaborators
concluded that due to under-enrollment, it was necessary to close
schools. The community agreed that it would save the system millions of
dollars that could be redirected to classrooms. Yet even for schools
that are not performing at high levels, few families want their schools
to close. Because elected officials must serve the constituents in
their particular wards, even in cities led by mayoral governance a
debate ensues in which everyone agrees that schools must close but few
politicians want any schools to close in their own wards. Fortunately,
with the backing of the mayor we were able to address under-enrollment
effectively by closing 23 schools and re-directing resources to schools
for next year. The mayoral governance structure has allowed us--for the
first time--to bring a librarian, teacher, music teacher, psychologist,
and physical education teacher to all schools that need them.
In the years to come, I am confident that we can turn our
children's potential into achievement. Due to much hard work in our
schools this year, and with greater authority to act on and build upon
the strong foundations built by those before me, our achievement gap
between African American and Caucasian students has decreased over the
past year by 6 points in reading and 5 points in math. The gap between
Hispanic and Caucasian students has decreased by 8 points in reading
and 7 in math. One school, Lafayette Elementary School, has decreased
its achievement gap between African American and Caucasian students by
19 percentage points. In the year before I began as chancellor, 52
schools had raised both their math and reading scores over the course
of one year. Considering the significant systemic challenges we saw,
when we set our performance goals we projected that as a district
students could move that number to 57 for the next year. They moved it
to 99. 117 of our schools have increased their math scores and 110 have
increased their reading scores. The number of schools with proficiency
rates below 20% has been almost cut in half, decreasing from 50 to 29.
Some schools have even doubled or tripled their average reading and
math scores. While we still have significant challenges ahead, this
kind of growth shows promise for the reforms mayoral governance has
enabled.
To further these gains and decrease the achievement gap, we must
continue to increase the level of accountability for everyone in the
system, including teachers. There is no other profession that
simultaneously requires the most competent and innovative professionals
and at the same time can discourage them from bringing their gifts to
our students. We must be able to significantly reward teachers who are
successful and to exit those who, even with the right supports, are
unable to increase their students' academic growth. We can do this by
working closely with union leaders to create the contracts that will
support these goals. When we consider the difficulty of what we are
asking teachers to do and the consequences to our children and cities
for not doing it well, it puzzles me that the issue of rewarding
teachers for success rather than seniority, is a controversial one.
Quality teachers in urban districts successfully raise student
achievement levels even in the face of poverty, violence, high rates of
AIDS and other STDs, low expectations, obesity, teen pregnancy, and
other issues that enter our schools with our children. We should not be
afraid to reward those who meet the very high demands we must place
upon them. Without investing in our teachers by rewarding them in a
tangible, meaningful way, we make it very difficult to attract and
retain the teachers who can close the achievement gap.
We have seen through the years that desegregation was not enough to
bring racial justice to education, which has not yet become the `great
equalizer' that Horace Mann intended public education to be. As we work
to become what he envisioned for public education in this country, this
year we are introducing the most dramatic and rapid changes this system
has seen since the desegregation of our schools. If there has been one
challenge I have heard most frequently since I accepted this challenge,
it has been that we are moving too quickly. But our students have been
waiting since long before 1954 for a just, challenging, and equal
system of public education. With mayoral governance under a mayor who
is willing to make the education of a district's young people the
number one priority, we can create accountability in systems that have
not seen it before. We can support principals and teachers in setting
high expectations for students and we can ensure that they have the
tools to meet those expectations. In DC and across the country, we can
deliver the public education to students that is theirs by right.
Thank you for your support and for your commitment to closing the
achievement gap in DC and across the country. I am happy to answer your
questions.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Mayor Bloomberg?
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG, MAYOR, CITY OF NEW YORK
Mr. Bloomberg. Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon,
ladies and gentlemen, thank you for convening this hearing on
urban education reform. There is nothing that you will ever do
in your lives that is as important as what you are trying to do
here.
I just wanted to say as an aside that you have just seen a
demonstration of the brilliance of Mayor Fenty who had the good
common sense, as I hope I did, of appointing a chancellor that
is smarter than we are and supporting them. That is what is
happening across this country. There are a lot of bright, young
people. That is the nicest thing I have ever said about you----
[Laughter.]
[off mike] I know you are not talking about me.
Mr. Bloomberg. We all know what has to be done. What we
have to do is find ways to do it.
Chairman Miller was in New York last winter. We did an
event together. And I just wanted to thank him for playing an
important role in the No Child Left Behind Act, which has
brought accountability to public schools from coast to coast.
It is hardly a perfect piece of legislation, but I think, in
all fairness, Congress and the President and you in particular,
sir, deserve credit for at least trying to address one of the
issues that has not been faced in this country basically since
public schools were founded.
And you are working towards authorizing a new and improved
Act, and I think anything that we can do to help you, we will
be there.
We have to focus on the achievement gap that Michelle and
Mayor Fenty talked about between different races, different
ethnicities, and if you take a look, it is between different
economic groups because we tend to talk about minorities, but
there are plenty of districts in this country where you see
poor whites that have exactly the same gap between their
performance and wealthier communities.
Our country is built on the principle that all those
willing to work have a shot at success, and, in fact, if you
take a look at our poverty measures, the new programs we are
trying, what we are trying to do is to find those people who
set their alarm clock and punch the time clock, but still
cannot share in the great American dream.
What we have to do is to give our children the wherewithal
to, when they get to that stage, be able to earn a living and
have the dignity of a job and be responsible for themselves and
their families, and they cannot do that unless we here find
ways to reduce this terrible gap that undermines that.
Today in America, black and Hispanic 12th graders are
reading at the same level as white eighth graders on average.
Just think about that. It is a disgrace, and, unfortunately,
there are too many people who are willing to accept the
achievement gap as the inevitable result of social and economic
factors that are out of the schools' control.
We can have a debate about the history of this country and
we can look for excuses or we can look forward and try to do
something about it, and in New York City where more than 70
percent of our 1.1 million public schoolchildren are black and
Hispanic, we have chosen to not sit back. We have chosen to not
look for explanations as to why it exists. Our focus has been
on going forward.
And over the last 6 years, where we have had a chancellor
who has set a record as perhaps the longest-serving chancellor
in our school system--and Dr. Hall can tell you in Atlanta one
of the reasons that she has been successful is that she has had
the time in office to really effect change and found ways to
overcome the politics that constantly create this revolving
door of management in our school systems which keep anybody
from being able to succeed--we have done everything possible to
reduce our achievement gap, and we have in some cases by as
much as half.
But to make great progress, we need to zero in on two areas
that go to the heart of improving No Child Life Behind and that
have been key to turning New York City schools around. One is
people, and two is accountability. And now bear with me for a
couple of minutes, and I would just like to focus on those.
First, people: Studies have shown that if our best teachers
taught our lowest-performing students, we would close the
achievement gap to zero within 5 years, and by the best
teachers, I mean those that have a proven track record of
helping children to learn. Michelle mentioned it, but far too
much emphasis is placed on seniority or academic credentials
when what we should really be doing is looking at teachers'
effectiveness, and that is what we are trying to do in New York
City.
First, we showed our teachers just how much we value their
important work by raising their salaries over the last 6 years
by 43 percent in over three contracts. In return for the 43
percent, our teachers now teach longer days, more days in the
year, give the principals more flexibility. Everybody has been
a big winner.
And when I came into office, we could not replace the
12,000 teachers that quit or retired every year with certified
teachers. Today, the number of teachers on a base of $80,000
that quit or retire each year is down to 5,000, and we have
between 50,000 and 60,000 teachers from across the country
applying to get a job in the New York City Public School
system, something that Joel Klein should be very proud of, but,
most importantly, our children are the beneficiaries of it.
Higher salaries will also help us attract a new group of
bright, young graduates who might otherwise opt for jobs in
other fields or in teaching in other locations.
Second, we have improved the tenure process so that tenure
becomes a meaningful decision based on student learning rather
than a foregone conclusion. Sadly, our state legislature has
hamstrung us a little bit, but the bottom line is if you want
to teach in New York City public schools and you want to have a
job for life, you have to earn it and show that if we are going
to give you teaching tenure, then you have to teach.
Third, we have created financial incentives to encourage
the most effective teachers and principals to choose work in
the schools that need them the most. You can earn extra money
if you go to those schools where the pedagogical problems are
the most severe. You can earn extra money if you have the skill
sets that are in short supply. The private world works that
way. The only place I know that does not work that way is in
the educational system throughout this country.
Finally, we have reached breakthrough agreements with both
our principals' union and our teachers' union to establish pay-
for-performance bonuses, an idea that teachers' unions have
traditionally opposed and opposed vehemently. But by
structuring our pay-for-performance program in ways that puts
the decisions in the hands of teachers and principals, we won
support from the head of the local teachers' union, Randi
Weingarten.
You may know that Randi is now the president of the
national AFT, and I think that is a good thing because her
willingness to experiment could result in more school districts
opting for pay-for-performance programs.
It is very easy to blame the teachers' unions across the
country, and I am certainly not going to let them off the hook,
but we are responsible as well as they are. Having said that,
we can change, and so can they, and if we work together, I
think we have shown in New York that teachers' unions can be a
force for progress and do not necessarily have to be the
impediment to that progress.
Now pay for performance leads us to the second key to
closing the achievement gap, and that is accountability. In New
York City, we have established data-driven progress reports
that give every school a grade every year. We send them out to
every public school parent. It was an idea that, when Joel
announced it, people were shocked. They said, ``What happens if
a school gets an F and the parent is told that their child is
going to a school that is rated very low? Won't the parent
scream?'' Yes, that is exactly what we want. We want the
parents, we want the teachers, we want the students to say,
``That is not acceptable.''
Our schools' letter grade is a progress report determined
by many different factors including its success in narrowing
the achievement gap, and these are progress reports in the
truest sense of the word because we do not measure how many
kids at a given school are proficient. We also measure
something that we care much more about, and that that is year-
to-year progress.
We have some schools--Stuyvesant is the one people talk
about--where a very large number of those kids are going to be
Nobel prizewinners, Rhodes scholars, scientists, and leaders.
We also have plenty of schools where kids do not have the
skills to get a job working in the most menial labor-intensive
tasks in our city, and we have to do something about both. So
we are concerned about progress as opposed to just taking a
look at the status quo.
Based on the data we are collecting, there are now rewards
for success in our schools and consequences for failure. If a
school continuously fails its students, we will shut it down,
and if a teacher continuously fails his or her students, we
will work to give principals the tools to remove that teacher
from the classroom.
Unfortunately, that has not been very easy to do in New
York or in many other cities because of inflexible contracts
with the teachers, but I think that we have to come to
understand we should be treating teachers like the
professionals that they are and that means not only paying them
as professionals, which we have tried to do, but holding them
accountable as professionals. If you want to get paid more, you
are going to have more responsibility and the consequences of
failure are just going to be greater.
And I think if everybody did that, that would go a long
ways towards ensuring that we have top-quality teachers in
high-needs schools, the single most important factor in closing
the achievement gap. To do it, however, throughout this
country, we do need federal leadership.
And let me suggest one promising idea. Congress can use the
power of the purse to withhold funds from districts that fail
to take meaningful steps towards reform. Too often, I think,
Congress, well meaning, votes money, but then does not have the
procedures in place or perhaps the courage to stand up and say
to the states and the cities and the districts that get federal
money have a responsibility to perform or that money will not
be there the next time around.
Rewards for success and consequences for failures--that is
how it works in the real world and the world that our students
will enter when they finish school. I think too often we are
coddling our children, we are trying to prevent them from
facing the consequences of their actions when, if they make a
mistake and we explain to them that they have made a mistake,
they can fix it. When they get out into the real world, the
consequences are much more serious, and nobody is going to give
them a second chance.
We have to do everything we can to prepare our students for
that day and so that all of them, regardless of their skin
color, regardless of their economic level, regardless of where
they or their parents came from or where they live, really
leave school with the ability to claim their piece of the great
American dream.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Bloomberg follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael R. Bloomberg, Mayor, the City of New
York
Good morning. I want to thank Chairman Miller--whom we were pleased
to welcome to New York last winter--and the members of this Committee
for convening this hearing on Urban Education Reform. Chairman Miller
played an important role in drafting the `No Child Left Behind' Act,
which brought accountability to public schools from coast to coast.
Now, in working towards authorizing a new and improved Act, this
committee has rightly focused on one of the most pressing issues in
public education: the achievement gap that exists among students of
different races and ethnicities.
Our country is built on the principle that all those willing to
work hard have a shot at success. But the achievement gap undermines
that. Today in America, Black and Hispanic 12th graders are reading at
the same level as white 8th graders, and unfortunately, there are too
many people who accept the achievement gap as an inevitable result of
social and economic factors that are out of a school's control. In New
York City--where more than 70% of our 1.1 million public school
children are Black and Hispanic--that's not a conclusion we're willing
to accept.
That's why over the past six years, we've done everything possible
to narrow the achievement gap--and we have. In some cases, we've
reduced it by half. But to make even greater progress, we need to zero
in on two areas that go to the heart of improving NCLB, and that have
been key to turning around New York City schools: People and
Accountability.
First, people. Studies have shown that if our best teachers taught
our lowest-performing students, we could close the achievement gap
within five years. And by the best teachers, I mean those with a proven
track record of helping children learn. Far too much emphasis is placed
on seniority or academic credentials when what we really should be
rewarding is effectiveness.
That's exactly what we're doing in New York City. First, we showed
our teachers just how much we value the important work they do by
raising salaries across the board by 43%. Those higher salaries will
also help us attract a new crop of bright graduates, who might
otherwise have opted for jobs in other fields--or teaching jobs in
other locations. Second, we've improved the tenure process so that
tenure becomes a meaningful decision based on student learning rather
than a foregone conclusion. Third, we've created financial incentives
to encourage the most effective teachers and principals to choose to
work in the schools that need them most. Finally, we reached
breakthrough agreements with both the principals' union and the
teachers' union to establish pay-for-performance bonuses--an idea that
teachers' unions have traditionally opposed. But by structuring our
pay-for-performance program in a way that puts the decisions in the
hands of teachers and principals, we won support from the head of the
local teacher's union, Randi Weingarten. As you may know, Randi is now
the president of the national AFT, and I think that's a good thing,
because her willingness to experiment could result in more school
districts adopting pay-for-performance programs.
Pay-for-performance leads us to the second key to closing the
achievement gap: accountability. In New York City, we've established
data-driven progress reports that give a letter grade to every single
school, and we send them out to every public school parent. These are
progress reports in the truest sense of the word, because they don't
just measure how many kids at a given school are proficient, they also
measure something we care about much more: year-to-year progress. A
school's letter grade on its progress report is determined by many
different factors--including its success in narrowing the achievement
gap. Based on the data we're collecting, there are now rewards for
success in our schools--and consequences for failure. If a school
continuously fails its students, we will shut it down. And if a teacher
continuously fails his or her students, we will work to give principals
the tools to remove that teacher from the classroom.
Unfortunately, this hasn't been very easy to do in New York--or in
many other cities--because of inflexible union work rules. I believe we
should be treating teachers like the professionals they are. And that
means not only paying them as professionals, but also holding them
accountable as professionals. That would go a long way toward ensuring
we have top-quality teachers in high-needs schools--the single most
important factor in closing the achievement gap. But to do it, we need
federal leadership--and let me suggest one promising idea: Congress can
use the power of the purse to withhold funds from districts that fail
to take meaningful steps towards reform.
Rewards for success and consequences for failure. That's how it
works in the real world--the world that our students will enter when
they finish school. We've got to do everything we can to prepare them
for that day, so that all of them--regardless of skin color--leave
school ready to claim their piece of the American Dream.''
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Chancellor Klein?
STATEMENT OF JOEL I. KLEIN, CHANCELLOR, NEW YORK CITY
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Mr. Klein. Thank, Mr. Chairman, Mr. McKeon, members of the
committee. It is a privilege to be back before you.
Thank you, Ms. Clarke, for your generous introduction, but,
more importantly, for your kind support and your constant
vigilance on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I want to start with a point that I think is
important because there are far too many people coming before
this committee and in our nation today who are saying, ``Well,
education really cannot do this,'' that to close the
achievement gap, we have to look at a lot of other things. I
agree we have to look at a lot of things, but I am here to tell
you that education can, indeed, do this. The question is: Do we
have the will as a people to get this work done?
From the day I started this job, people told me, they said,
``Joel, you will never fix education until you fix poverty.''
With all due respect, we will never fix poverty in this nation
until we fix education, and we have to get on with the hard
work of fixing education.
How do I know it can be done? Because my colleagues across
this table are doing it. Every one of them understands how much
further they need to go, but every one of us also knows that we
have seen it happen, that education can transform the lives of
kids from the most dysfunctional, high poverty backgrounds.
That is what is happening in New York City.
This year, we won the Broad Prize as the best school
district, and the feature of our success was closing the
achievement gap. We did it. It is a multiple-year analysis, 100
different urban districts. This year, in New York City, on
grades three to eight exams, we went up as a city 7 points in
English, 9 points in math. Our African-American and Latino
students did twice as well as our white students in closing the
achievement gap. Those gaps are not closed, but those gaps are
closing.
And I want to tell you a story because I think it is really
powerful and puts the lie to those who say education cannot be
the game-changer, and that is, under the mayor's leadership, we
fought and we fought hard to make New York a charter-friendly
city. We believe competition works. It works for the public
schools. It gives options to our parents.
You know what happened this year? We had some 8,000 charter
students take those tests. Those 8,000 kids in New York City
are over 90 percent African-American and Latino, and they are
80 percent Title 1 high poverty students. That cohort, which is
seen to be a ``hard-to-educate group,'' that cohort
outperformed the State of New York, which is much, much more
middle class, much, much less minority students. The fact of
the matter is we can do this work.
Now you asked a question, Mr. Chairman. What can the
federal government do? The federal government, I think, is
indispensible to showing the political will and muscle. Will it
be easy? Of course not.
Every one of us has spoken, talked about accountability,
and the thing that made No Child most valuable is it put
accountability into the DNA, and there are a lot of people that
do not like accountability, and I can tell you, on days when I
have had a bad day and I get a call from my colleague on the
right over here and he tells me, ``Why did you screw that up?''
I am not so keen on accountability those days either. I can
understand, but the truth of the matter is accountability is
absolutely indispensable. Indeed, I would urge the federal
government not to ratchet down, but to ratchet up
accountability.
The first time I ever heard that concept was from someone I
think who will surprise you, the great labor leader Al Shanker,
15 years ago at the Pew Forum. You know what he said when he
talked about changing education? And I want to quote him. He
said, ``The key is that unless there is accountability, we will
never get the right system.'' ``Unless there is accountability,
we will never get the right system.'' ``As long as there are no
consequences if kids or adults do not perform''--if kids or
adults do not perform--``as long as the discussion is not about
education and student outcomes''--about student outcomes--
``then we are playing a game as to who has the power,'' and
that is what Michelle was talking about, and as we talk about
who has the power, our kids pay the price.
Now I have two suggestions. Each one of them is something
this committee has heard a lot about, but I think they are both
important.
We have to move to a growth model, and we have to move to
the kind of robust growth model we have in New York City. You
call the school failure or something. It diffuses public focus.
Sure, when kids are in an F school in New York City, our
parents scream. We actually give them the opportunity to
transfer out. But if they do not scream, you do not create the
political muscle for real change, and what is of greater shame
than telling a parent that her kid is in an F school is not
telling her and pretending it is not an F school, and I think
we need to have an accountability system that is open,
transparent, and known to every kid.
Second of all--and I know this is hard, Mr. Chairman, but I
know you are the man to get it done--we need national standards
and national assessments. The kids in Idaho, the kids in
California, the kids in New York are competing globally, and
they are competing against countries that have national
standards and rigorous assessments.
A lot of people have knocked testing. I would be the first
to tell you we can improve our testing, and one of the ways to
do that is get the best minds in this country to study the
global standards that are out there and bring to this nation an
insistence on high-quality standards.
You know, graduating high school is important, but, for
many of our kids, they simply get a diploma. They do not get
the skills necessary to finish college and compete in the 21st
century, and believe you me our competitors throughout the
world are focused on this issue, and for us to have 50
different standards in all these different assessments and
create all the problems with that is a huge mistake. Let's be
tough. We owe it to our kids. We owe it to our nation.
The second thing is invest, invest, invest in high-quality
teachers, everything everyone is saying here. Do not diffuse
federal funding. What is the biggest challenge? The recent
ASPEN study pointed it out. The most important thing in a kid's
education--we know it, you know it--is the quality of her
teachers. As to that most important thing, that is where you
close your achievement gap. Great teachers close achievement
gaps. As to that most important thing, our poor kids, our
minority kids, they are not getting remotely their equitable
share.
Where should the federal government play? It should play by
incentivizing two things.
Incentivize performance. Do not worry, as the mayor said,
about all the qualifications, all right. I have met lawyers
with the greatest degrees in the world. I would not let them
handle a parking ticket for me. Incentivize. Incentivize
performance. When Michelle Rhee taught in Baltimore, she moved
her kids to an entirely different level. She does the work she
does now because she knows what success with kids is all about.
She does not make excuses. Those who do the kind of work she
did, give them lots of financial reward. Those who do not have
to exit the system.
And, second, those who take on the toughest challenges, who
in our city go to Central Brooklyn where Yvette is from, who go
to Harlem, who go to South Bronx, the poorest congressional
district in the nation, those people who take on the toughest
challenges, they should be rewarded.
Our principals in New York City--if they do that, we give
them $25,000 a year if we think they are the top drawer, and
for 3 years, they commit to turn around schools, and then there
is another $25,000 that they can make if they have really good
accountability system results.
We can do this. It is not going to be easy. But I have to
tell you the clock is ticking on us. I have been meeting with
people throughout the world who come to New York to discuss
what they are doing, and I will tell you people get it. It is
time for us to get it.
[The statement of Mr. Klein follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joel I. Klein, Chancellor, New York City
Department of Education
Good morning Chairman Miller and members of the Committee on
Education and Labor.
Fifteen years ago, the iconic teacher's union leader, Al Shanker,
made a point that we are still working to make real in American public
schools.
``The key is that unless there is accountability, we will never get
the right system,'' he said. ``As long as there are no consequences if
kids or adults don't perform, as long as the discussion is not about
education and student outcomes, then we're playing a game as to who has
the power.''
No Child Left Behind focused this nation on accountability.
Chairman Miller, you and your colleagues deserve great praise for this.
In New York City, we have refined accountability, giving schools and
families tools to assess where students are and devise plans to improve
and giving administrators the information necessary to ensure that
schools are fulfilling their responsibilities to students.
When the right people are held to high standards and expected to
meet them, you see results.
And that's what we've been seeing in New York City. We are getting
results.
Last September, we won the largest and most prestigious education
award in the country, the Broad Prize for Urban Education, largely
because of the progress we've made reducing the achievement gap.
Since we started this work in 2002, our students have outpaced
gains made by students in the rest of the State in math and reading--
and our African-American and Latino students have gained on their white
and Asian peers.
In fourth-grade math, for example, the gap separating our African-
American and white students has narrowed by more than 16 points. In
eighth-grade math, African-American students have closed the gap with
white students by almost 5 points. In fourth-grade reading, the gap
between African-American and white students has narrowed by more than 6
points. In eighth-grade reading, the gap has closed by about 4 points.
Let's also look at our charter schools: the City's 60 charters
serve a population that is more than 90% African-American and Latino
and 80% poor, compared to 40% and 45%, respectively, in schools
statewide.
Yet charter students are head to head with students who, by
anyone's prediction, would be much more likely to succeed. This year,
about 85% of City charter students met State math standards, beating
students statewide, and about 67% of City charter students met State
reading standards, just shy of the statewide average.
What does this show? Achievement for high-needs students is not a
dream. It's happening. What we must do now is make this a reality for
all students.
We must make sure that as a country, the results we are seeing are
meaningful in terms of our students' results. All schools--whether in
New York or Kansas--must provide students with the same high-quality
education and must be held to the same high standards.
And we must track individual students over time, using a ``growth
model,'' as we do in New York City. Comparing this year's fourth
graders to next year's fourth graders as Federal law now requires does
little to ensure that we're helping individual students advance.
We must also not lose sight of the importance of our most important
asset--our educators. Nationally, this means holding educators to high
standards, and by that I mean student outcomes. That means making sure
students, particularly those with the highest needs, have teachers who
can produce results. Substantial Federal investment in pay
differentials to attract the highest performing educators to the
highest needs schools is critical. Similarly, substantial Federal
financial support to attract successful math and science instructors to
schools would help, and a major Federal commitment to reward teachers
who get results would have a big impact.
We know that we have much hard work ahead of us, but we are
confident that we are on the right track and, with your help, we can
get this done.
______
Chairman Miller. Dr. Hall?
STATEMENT OF BEVERLY L. HALL, SUPERINTENDENT, ATLANTA PUBLIC
SCHOOLS
Ms. Hall. Thank you, Chairman Miller, Ranking Member
McKeon, and members of the committee.
I have great respect for your work, and I have great
respect for the work of my colleagues who join me here today.
And thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak.
We are clearly not here to declare victory. Nevertheless,
seeing the academic gains that urban schools are making
nationally is encouraging and, often, that is not heard enough.
I invite everyone here, when you have an opportunity, to
visit Atlanta public schools and see for yourself the tangible
evidence of what I will be sharing today.
First of all, I accepted the invitation to share with you
the coming together of an entire community in Atlanta around a
school system that was stagnant--stagnant--and is now being
fixed. Atlanta has an elected school board. It is not under
mayoral control.
Since 2000, the district has posted academic gains every
year with no slippage, even as the state continues to raise the
bar, and our schools are closing dramatically the gaps with the
state.
Allow me to just give you four facts.
Eight years ago, only 47 percent of our fourth graders met
or exceeded standards in reading. We were trailing the state by
18 points. Today, that gap has just about disappeared. Eighty-
six percent of our fourth graders meet or exceed standards,
trailing the state now by 2 percentage points, and I am
especially proud that 32 percent of those fourth graders are
exceeding the state standard, and on this measure, they are
actually leading the state.
Again, the standards are much more rigorous than when I
arrived there in 1999-2000.
The other important factor is that Atlanta in 2006-2007
made adequate yearly progress in every one of our elementary
schools. The Council of the Great City Schools says they know
of no other urban system that can make that claim. All of our
elementary schools made adequate yearly progress.
Graduation rates are up. Carver High School was our lowest-
performing high school that was left after I closed the two
lowest, the two who were lower than Carver. The graduation rate
tripled from 23 percent in 2003 to now 66 percent in 2007, and
Carver has experienced a 50 percent increase in the number of
neighborhood children enrolling.
When I got to Atlanta, I realized that if we began to show
these kinds of gains, people would question whether or not it
was because of the tests, knowing that there is such disparity
between and amongst all of the state tests, and so we
volunteered to be a part of the 11 urban systems to participate
in the Trial Urban District Assessment so that our success
could be validated with the National Assessment of Educational
Progress.
And, by the way, I join my colleagues in really emphasizing
that I, too, support national testing for all of our systems.
However, it is important to note that on this Trial Urban
District Assessment, Atlanta public schools was the only one of
the 11 participating districts to demonstrate what is called
significant improvement in all grades and subjects tested since
2003. In writing, the most recent NAEP assessments show that
Atlanta public schools have made gains at seven times the
national rate.
Now demographically Atlanta looks like all the other urban
districts. Our student body is racially diverse. We are 91
percent minority--84 percent black, 5 percent Hispanic, 9
percent white, and 1 percent other. Seventy-six percent, or
three in four of our students, are approved for free or reduced
meals, which is 22 percentage points more than the State of
Georgia as a whole, and the vast majority of Atlanta students
really qualify for free lunch. That is 36,000 of our 50,000
students living near or below the poverty line.
Even with so many of our students facing challenging odds,
each year, these academic gains have spread to more and more
students in more and more grade levels, and the gains have
spread from reading and mathematics to other subjects as well.
When I got to Atlanta, you could predict by the geographical
location of the school whether or not that school would be
performing at a high level. Now that is clearly not the case.
From north to south, east to west, we have schools that are
performing across the board at very high levels.
When I arrived, again, it was clear that the district
needed total transformation like you hear being mentioned about
Washington, D.C., and we have found that what works is a set of
steps that are simple to describe, but complicated to implement
in a system with so many constituents and so many moving parts.
First, we have a powerful coalition of business and
community leaders and parents who came together. They
understood that comprehensive school reform was critical to
Atlanta's revitalization and economic health. This coalition
focused on recruiting quality candidates for the school board
and supported the board and the superintendent and the schools.
I was the fourth superintendent in 10 years, and having this
coalition of supporters with a firm grasp of the work ahead was
crucial in making my tenure stay stable enough to get the job
done.
This coalition also understood that, in the case of urban
school district reform, patience really is a virtue. There are
no quick fixes. Sustainable reform takes time, and at first,
the rewards seem incremental. Eventually, however, they add up
to dramatic improvement that is sustainable over time.
Second--these are not ranked in order of importance, but
for the purpose of presentation--we improved the quality of our
staff, including those in the central office. You heard about
the issues in Washington, D.C. That could be transferred to
Atlanta as in many other urban areas. So we looked at improving
the central office staff, our principals, and our teachers
throughout hiring, through making it clear what expectations
were, by using meaningful evaluations linked to student
outcomes, and continuous professional development. We have,
indeed, replaced 89 percent of Atlanta's principals since 1999.
Third, we created a tailored accountability target for each
school and based my annual evaluation and those of the
principals and staff on meeting those targets.
And, by the way, we began this before No Child Left Behind.
These targets focus not just on increasing the percent of
students that meets the standard, but also the percent that
exceeds them because we know for our students to go on to be
successful, particularly in post-secondary options, they must
exceed the minimum standards that are set by the state.
And, most importantly, at schools that meet 70 percent or
more of their target, the entire staff from the bus driver to
the custodian to the teacher to the principal all receive
additional compensation.
Fourth, we implemented comprehensive research-based reforms
districtwide, focusing on, of course, job-embedded professional
development, utilizing, through Title 2 funding and other
supports, coaching. We have model teacher leaders and lots of
mentors in our schools so that we can, indeed, change the
practice where it is most important, where the rubber meets the
road, between the teacher and the students.
And, fifth, we continuously evaluate and refine our
programs, based on the results that we are getting as well as
feedback that we consistently seek from central office,
principals, teachers, and students.
The Atlanta public schools are still climbing the tough
path to total transformation, but with the achievement gaps
narrowing and the strong support of the community, we actually
believe now that that goal is in sight.
And so, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I thank
you, again, for the opportunity to share Atlanta's story with
you, and I will be pleased to respond to specific questions
that you might have.
[The statement of Ms. Hall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Beverly L. Hall, Superintendent, Atlanta Public
Schools
Atlanta Public Schools is one of 35 school districts serving the
metro area. Although the City of Atlanta's population has remained
relatively static, declining birth rates in the city have lowered
enrollment from about 60,000 students during the mid-1990s to our
current level of 50,000 students.
The racial make-up of our student body is relatively stable at 84
percent black, 9 percent white, 5 percent Hispanic and 1 percent other.
Three in four of our students are approved for free or reduced-price
meals, and of these, 94 percent receive free meals--that's roughly
36,000 of our 50,000 students living near or below the poverty line.
The introduction of the Georgia Criterion-Referenced Competency
Tests in 2000 gave us a needed, if depressing, baseline for student
performance.
In grade 4, 47 percent of our students met or exceeded
expectations in reading, compared with 65 percent statewide.
In grade 6, 40 percent of our students met or exceeded
expectations in language arts, compared with 61 percent in the state.
In grade 8, 36 percent of our students met or exceeded
expectations in mathematics, compared with 54 percent statewide.
Atlanta Public Schools trailed the state by 14 or more points in
every tested subject and grade level.
Our students were also not performing as well as those in the state
in writing. In 1999, Atlanta fifth- and eighth-graders trailed the
statewide percentage of students who met or exceeded the standard on
the state writing assessment, and two out of every three eighth-grade
students did not meet expectations.
Although graduation rates rose by 10 percentage points between 1996
and 1999, by the end of 1999 a full 40 percent of those who had entered
ninth-grade four years earlier did not receive diplomas.
What does APS look like today?
Using our focus on instruction and student success, proven,
research-based methods and an accountability system tailored to each
school, more than eight years after initiating our comprehensive reform
agenda, I am pleased to say that the transformation initiatives are
paying off:
The district has demonstrated continued steady improvement
as evidenced by increasing test scores over time. There has been no
exception to this trend since 2000.
In 2008, APS students posted meaningful academic gains on
the state assessments for the eighth consecutive year. In fact, our
preliminary data suggest that in all grades and subjects tested last
year, our students met or exceeded their 2007 performance.
The number of APS schools making Adequate Yearly Progress
continues to increase. This year all 62 elementary schools, including
our charter schools, met AYP for the first time in history. No other
large urban school district can make that claim, according to the
Council of Great City Schools. Venetian Hills Elementary, which was in
Needs Improvement status in 2002, was named a 2007 ``Blue Ribbon''
school by the U.S. Department of Education--a total transformation.
Secretary Spellings recently called APS ``a model for the
country,'' based on our students' performance on the 2007 National
Assessment of Educational Progress. APS was the only one of the 11
districts voluntarily participating in the Trial Urban District
Assessment to demonstrate significant, consistent improvement in all
grades and test areas since 2003. The most recent NAEP writing
assessments show that Atlanta's scores have grown at seven times the
national rate.
The local donor community stands behind me and my reform
efforts.
Since 1999, I have implemented system-wide reform at each
school level:
Elementary: APS maintained or closed the gap with the
state on 28 of 30 comparable subject area assessments, and 100 percent
of our elementary schools made Adequate Yearly Progress.
Middle school: Transformation of all middle schools is
about to launch with a tailored strategic plan for each.
High school: by 2012, all APS high schools will be
transformed into small, personalized learning environments focused on
college and careers. Carver High School, now the four New Schools at
Carver, has experienced a 50 percent increase in the number of
neighborhood children enrolling, and the graduation rate has jumped
from 23 percent in 2003 to 66 percent in 2007. The system's overall
graduation rate is 68 percent which is comparable with the state and
exceeds the national average of 50 percent for students of color. The
number of students attending college in our Project GRAD target schools
has increased by 400 percent.
How was this remarkable turnaround accomplished?
The impetus for change came from the business community and the
Atlanta Chamber of Commerce in the 1990s when, after realizing the
direction in which the district was moving, and the negative impact it
was having on economic development, they made a conscious effort to
turn things around.
First, a coalition of business and community leaders set out to
improve the caliber of those running for school board. They did so by
helping recruit candidates and holding seminars regarding effective
boardsmanship.
The second step was to hire a superintendent (for the 1999-00
school year) who was reform-minded and had a sense of what needed to be
done to turn things around.
I made a comprehensive series of changes to reform the district,
none of which can be discounted.
1. Reorganized central office and revised central office job
descriptions and annual staff evaluations in ways that signal (to the
incumbents) that their major task is to support school-based staff in
their efforts to improve the quality of teaching and learning.
2. Incorporated the extent to which students perform at higher
performance levels directly into central office staff and school-based
staff annual evaluations, assuring that they all focus on this ultimate
outcome.
3. Did not tolerate the presence of chronically ineffective staff
(at any level) who did not, or could not, benefit from professional
development.
4. Upgraded the quality of school principals through more effective
recruiting, mentoring once they were hired, and through holding them
accountable for the performance of their students. Those principals who
were deemed not to be qualified were removed from those positions.
Approximately 89 percent of our schools have gotten new principals
since 1999.
5. Required the development of a district-wide Strategic Plan, as
well as individual School Achievement Plans, that required staff to
specify how they were going to address system-wide initiatives. These
plans also provided a roadmap by which supervisors could judge the
progress of their staff and suggest program improvements.
6. Established mechanisms for gathering input from central office
staff, principals, teachers, and students regarding how the district
was functioning and ways how it could be improved.
7. Provided principals with the tools they needed to effectively
monitor and adjust the quality of instruction in their schools.
8. Provided schools with various forms of technology and taught
staff how to use it to improve school efficiency and/or student
learning.
9. Set clear expectations for what constitutes ``best practices''
by teachers, and provided on-going training for teachers regarding how
to meet those expectations at the highest levels.
10. Improved the overall quality of teaching through aggressive
recruiting techniques, and the use of alternatively prepared teachers
like Teach for America corpsmembers.
11. Upgraded the quality of classroom teaching by designing and
implementing (on an on-going basis) targeted professional development
12. Introduced a variety of specific program initiatives to give
staff the necessary structure to help them address specific teaching
and learning issues. These initiatives included the Comprehensive
School Reform Models, Project GRAD, High School Learning Communities,
etc.
13. Conducted, on an on-going basis, special studies to respond to
areas identified by data as problem areas. For example, data indicated
weaknesses at the middle school level, the high school level and in
science. Based on these analyses special program efforts were designed
to address the weaknesses.
14. Solicited, on an on-going basis, grants and other support from
outside organizations to finance efforts that were beyond the funding
that was raised locally.
15. Provided public recognition (and bonuses) to staff in schools
that were unusually effective.
16. Taught staff at all levels (central office and in the schools)
to access and use a wide variety of data for making resource allocation
decisions, and for adjusting instruction for individual students.
17. Enhanced security operations in the schools to assure the best
possible environment for effective teaching and learning.
18. Worked, in an on-going manner, with business, civic and parents
groups to gain support for several tax levies that were used to enhance
the reform efforts.
19. Elevated the professionalism and quality of the school
district's business functions in order to build and maintain the
public's confidence in the district to wisely spend and account for
public tax dollars.
20. Improved the physical character of the schools, making them
safer, more functional and more attractive.
The Atlanta Public Schools hasn't claimed victory yet. We are still
climbing the tough path to total transformation, but with achievement
gaps melting away and the strong support of our community, our goal is
in sight.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much.
Mr. Duncan, one of the pioneers here.
STATEMENT OF ARNE DUNCAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CHICAGO
PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Chairman Miller and members of the
House Education and Labor Committee. Thank you so much for the
opportunity to testify today on behalf of Chicago Public
Schools.
Let me also thank my good friend, Representative Danny
Davis, for his longstanding commitment to public education and
all of his hard work on our behalf. Thank you so much.
I would further like to thank committee members Judy
Biggert and Phil Hare for their bipartisan support and good
common-sense approaches to education policy. Their work in this
committee and devotion to promoting high standards, quality
teachers, and viable school options has been a great benefit to
me in Chicago.
Our Chicago Public Schools serve over 400,000 children.
Eighty-five percent of our children live below the poverty
line, and 90 percent come from the minority community. All of
them have potential.
Tapping the great potential of underprivileged, inner-city
children represents the greatest educational challenge and
opportunity facing our country. In many ways, we are meeting
this challenge, but we still have a long way to go and we must
be relentless in challenging the status quo and courageous in
staying the course.
In Chicago, virtually every important indicator of progress
is moving the right direction--test scores, attendance rates,
and graduation rates. We are lucky enough to be on a winning
streak.
In 2001, less than 40 percent of our children met state
standards. Today, almost two-thirds do, and more than two-
thirds of our eighth graders are at or above state standards.
Over the last 5 years, our high school students have
improved at twice the rate of the State of Illinois and three
times the rate of the country on the ACT test that helps to
determine college admission. More and more of our high school
students are taking college-level classes, and more and more of
them are doing well enough to receive college credit.
On the national test comparing Chicago to other cities in
NAEP that others have talked about, we have gone up 11 points
since 2002 while the nation has gone up 3, so we are working
hard to close the achievement.
Hispanic students, who represent over a third of our
population, scored the highest of any other big-city school
district in the country, and so gains are being made among key
subgroups as well.
We began tracking college acceptance rates 3 years ago, and
those numbers have risen every year. Today, over half our
graduates go to college. One of the numbers I am most proud of
is last year's. Our seniors' graduating class won $84 million
in competitive grants and scholarships beyond the normal
financial aid, and we are hoping for the class that just
graduated that number will be over $100 million.
This progress can be attributed to a few simple strategies
that we have relentlessly pursued since the City of Chicago,
under the leadership of Mayor Daley, assumed full control of
the school system in 1995. I want to talk through five sort of
core strategies that shaped our work.
The first thing we did was to end social promotions, which
is the shameless practice of passing children each year even
though they are not ready and ultimately graduating them
without the skills they need to succeed.
Before the accountability and intervention measures of No
Child Left Behind, Chicago took initiative to hold students
accountable to annual state assessments, identified students in
the most chronically failing schools, and to provide
intervention services, including mandatory summer school,
after-school programs, and alternative schools with smaller
class sizes and extended-day programs.
We got back to basics with our curriculum. We put great
emphasis on literacy and placed hundreds of reading coaches
into schools and created a daily requirement of 2 hours of
reading every single day, every school, every grade, every
child. We have since expanded this approach to math and
physical science, and we are now looking at the social
sciences.
Third, we began opening a great new array of innovative
schools through our Renaissance 2010 initiative. This fall, we
will have about 75 charter schools operating amongst our 625
schools in Chicago. We have many, many different approaches to
education. Some are single-sex schools. We have many military
academies. We want to open some residential schools in Chicago.
Almost all of these new schools and charter schools are
succeeding, and they all have waiting lists of parents eager to
enroll their children in our system.
I see myself as a portfolio manager. We need to continue to
create more of what folks are looking for and we must continue
to meet that demand that parents are asking for in terms of
quality.
More recently, we have become even more aggressive about
opening new schools--we have 35 new schools opening this fall--
but also closing down schools that are failing. We are one of
the few districts in the country that literally shut down
underperforming schools and replaced the entire school staff.
This turnaround school strategy has taken some of our
lowest-performing schools and within just a couple of years
doubled or tripled student performance--same children, same
families, same socioeconomic challenges, same neighborhoods,
same school buildings, but different teachers, new leadership,
and a new educational approach--and the results are dramatic.
As Chancellor Klein said, it puts the lie to any myth of what
poor children can or cannot do.
This is the kind of bold reform that simply would not be
possible without the extraordinary support of Mayor Daley and
other local elected officials. This is tough work.
Superintendents across the country would love to have Chicago's
governance structure because the buck stops with the mayor. He
stands with us in challenging the status quo, pushing the
envelope, and driving change.
The fourth thing we have tried to do is to dramatically
expand learning opportunities by investing heavily in
preschool, after school, Saturday school, and summer school.
The outmoded notion that school should only operate 5 days a
week and 180 days per year makes no sense for any of our
children, whether they come from two-parent working families,
whether they come from single moms who are sometimes working
one, two, even three jobs trying to make a living, or whether
it is our 9,000 children who are homeless. All of our children
need to be worked with as many hours as possible, and in an
ideal world, every one of our children should be constructively
engaged from birth to age 18 for as many hours as possible.
Finally, our fifth and last major strategy involves raising
the quality of principals and teachers, and this effort
includes several important dimensions. As you have heard
repeatedly this morning, in our world, talent matters
tremendously, and nothing is more important than getting the
best and brightest adults working with our children every
single day.
We have boosted the standards for principal selection and
actually cut in half the number of people eligible to become
principals and will challenge a new generation of school
leaders to meet these higher standards. This past fall, we
hired 171 new principals, creating a new generation of
leadership in more than a quarter of our schools.
At the same time, we are much more aggressively recruiting
teachers, attracting more than 10 resumes now for every
opening. A decade ago, we would have been lucky to receive two.
As a recent independent report from the Illinois Education
Research Council confirmed, the quality of teaching, even in
hard-to-staff schools, is dramatically better today than it was
a decade ago.
Recruitment is critical, and we are very proud of those
efforts, but retaining that great talent is probably even more
important and is definitely a tougher challenge, and we will
try to work equally hard in that area.
In just 6 years, we have gone from 11 National Board
Certified teachers to more than 860, and our goal is to get to
2,400 National Board Certified teachers by the year 2011, and
we track very closely the number of teachers leaving the
system. The extent of the teachers leaving CBS after 3 years
dropped from 36 percent in 2003 to 15 percent in 2007, so cut
that in more than half, and we still have some hard work to do
there.
We recognize the need to continue to do a better job of
retaining quality teachers in our lowest-performing schools.
All new teachers get a mentor, and in particularly tough
neighbors, about 300 teachers this year have worked more
intensely with coaches from the Chicago New Teachers Center
with plans to expand the two-year-old program to another 30
schools.
We must continue to think differently, not just about how
we recruit and retain and support teachers, but how we
compensate them, and thanks to the largest competitive grant we
ever received, a $30 million federal Teacher Incentive Fund
grant from the Department of Education, we have worked with our
teachers' union to introduce the first pay-for-performance
program in the history of Chicago Public Schools that offers
bonuses to great teachers. In fact, the very first payments
will be happening this summer based upon rising student
achievements.
Performance-based pay for teachers will be expanded from 10
to 20 high-needs schools this fall, and there is tremendous
demand amongst schools for this amongst the best teachers. For
the initial pilot, we had over 120 schools apply, and we would
only go to schools where 75 percent or more of the teachers
wanted this. There is tremendous demand.
Let me just conclude with a couple of ways in which we
would love to continue to partner with the federal government.
As others here have said, the No Child Left Behind Act with a
focus on accountability was a huge step in the right direction.
The focus on subgroups is a huge step in the right direction.
But the one thing that was interesting is I think there is
always this debate around what is loose and what is tight, and
I want to echo my colleagues in saying that I think this part
could really be improved, I think, fairly dramatically. It is
pretty interesting. What was very loose was the goals that we
were all shooting for. Fifty different bars do not make sense.
What was tight was how you get there, and some of those things
did not quite make sense, choice before tutoring and other
things. I think, if we reversed that, if we were tight on the
goals that hold us all to very clear standards, but were loose
in how we got there and allowed creativity and economy at the
local level to get to those standards, I think that would make
a lot of sense.
Secondly, I completely agree with Chancellor Klein, the
focus on growth and gain, what we call value added, is so much
more important than the absolute bar. Like other school
systems, we have some of the best schools in the country, we
have a lot in the middle, and, unfortunately, we also have some
of the worst. I am not interested in what their absolute
performance is. I am interested in how much better those
schools are getting, how much better those students are doing
each year. The only way to measure that is not by looking at
absolute test scores. It is by looking at gains, by value
added, and those growth models are so important.
And then finally, continue to fund innovation. I know,
Chairman Miller, you worked so hard on the Teacher Incentive
Fund model. That is truly a cultural breakthrough for us in
Chicago and other places. So continue to use, as the mayor
said, the power of the purse to fund those things that really
force us and push us to think outside the box and trying to
dramatically change the life chances of our children.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Duncan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Arne Duncan, Chief Executive Officer, Chicago
Public Schools
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the
Chicago Public Schools.
Let me also thank Representative Danny Davis for his longstanding
leadership on a myriad of policy issues from this committee that have
benefited the Chicago Public Schools.
I would further like to thank committee members Judy Biggert and
Phil Hare for their bipartisan support and good commonsense approaches
to education policy. Their work on this committee and devotion to
promoting high standards, quality teachers, and viable school options
too has benefited Chicago.
Chicago Public Schools serve over 400,000 children. 85% percent of
our children live below the poverty line. 90% are minorities. All of
them have potential.
Tapping the potential of underprivileged, inner-city children
represents the greatest educational challenges facing our country.
In many ways we are meeting this challenge. In many other ways we
are still falling short.
In Chicago, virtually every important indicator of progress is
moving in the right direction: test scores, attendance, and graduation
rates. We're on a winning streak.
In 2001, less than 40 percent of our kids met state standards.
Today, almost two thirds do and more than two-thirds of our 8th graders
are at or above state standards.
Our high school students are out-gaining the State of Illinois and
the nation on the ACT test that is needed for admission to college.
More and more of our high school students are taking college-level
courses and more and more of them are testing well enough to earn
college credits.
On the national test comparing Chicago to other cities (NAEP) and
to the nation--we've gone up 11 point since 2002 while the nation has
gone up just 3, so we're closing the gap.
Hispanic students scored the highest of any other big city school
district on this test so gains are being made among key subgroups as
well.
We began tracking college acceptance rates three years ago and the
numbers have risen every year. Today, over half of our graduates go to
college.
This progress can be attributed to a few simple strategies that we
have relentlessly pursued since the City of Chicago--under the
leadership of Mayor Richard Daley--assumed full control of the school
system in 1995.
The first thing we did was end social promotions--which is the
shameless practice of passing children each year even though they are
not ready--and ultimately graduating them without the skills they need
to succeed.
Before the accountability and intervention measures of NCLB,
Chicago took the initiative to hold students accountable to annual
state assessments, to identify students in the most chronically failing
schools, and to provide intervention services including mandatory
summer school, after school programs, alternative schools w/ smaller
class sizes and extended day programs.
We got back to basics with our curriculum, aligning it to the state
academic standards all the way down to optional daily lesson plans. We
put great emphasis on literacy with reading coaches in schools and a
daily requirement of two hours of reading time--every school, every
student, every grade, every day.
We have since expanded this approach to math and physical science
and now we are looking at the social sciences.
We began opening new schools to offer more educational options
including five citywide high school military academies ranging from the
Army, Navy, and Marine Corps. This past year the military academies had
some of the highest attendance rates in the city. We are looking at an
Air force Academy for the fall of 2009 for students.
This fall, Chicago will also have about 75 charter schools
operating among the 625 schools in our system. Some of them are single-
sex high schools--many others have specialized areas of focus while
others are simply traditional public schools operating outside of
conventional restrictions.
Almost all of them are succeeding--and they all have waiting lists
with parents eager to enroll their children in our system.
More recently, we have become even more aggressive about opening
new schools--and closing down schools that are failing.
We are one of the few districts in the country that has shut down
underperforming schools and replaced the entire school staff.
This turnaround school strategy has taken some of our lowest-
performing schools and doubled or tripled test scores within a few
years.
Same kids--different teachers--new leadership and a new educational
approach--and the results are dramatic.
This is the kind of bold reform that would not be possible without
the strong support of the Mayor and local elected officials.
Superintendents all across the country envy Chicago's governance
structure because the buck stops with the Mayor and he stands with us
in challenging the status quo, pushing the envelope and driving change.
The fourth thing that we have done is to greatly expand learning
opportunities by investing heavily in pre-school, after school, and
summer school.
The outmoded notion that schools should only operate for 6 hours a
day and 180 days per year makes no sense in an information society
where success is a function of knowledge.
In an ideal world, every one of our children should be
constructively engaged from birth to age 18--for as many hours as
possible.
The last major strategy involves raising the quality of principals
and teachers and this effort includes several important dimensions.
We boosted the standards for principal selection--cutting the
eligibility list in half and challenging a new generation of school
leaders to meet these higher standards.
At the same time, we are much more aggressively recruiting
teachers--attracting more than 10 resumes for every opening. A decade
ago, we would get maybe two or three.
As a recent independent report from the Illinois Education Research
Council confirms, the quality of teaching--even in hard-to-staff
schools is dramatically better today than a decade ago.
Over six years, CPS has dramatically improved the quality of its
teaching force.
We have gone from just 11 national-board certified
teachers to more than 860--with hundreds more in the pipeline.
The percentage of teachers leaving CPS after just three
years dropped from 36 percent in 2003 to 15 percent in 2007.
We recognize that need to do a better job retaining quality
teachers in our lowest performing schools.
All new teachers get a mentor, and in particularly tough
neighborhoods about 300 teachers this year worked more intensely with
coaches from the Chicago New Teachers Center, with plans to expand the
two-year-old program to another 30 schools this fall.
CPS has narrowed (by 27 percent) the quality gap between
CPS teachers and the area with the highest caliber teachers, near
Urbana-Champaign between 2001 and 2006.
Thanks to the federal Teacher Incentive Fund grant, we worked with
our teacher's union to introduce a pay for performance program that
offers bonuses for great teachers. In fact, the very first payouts are
happening this month.
Performance-based pay for teachers will also be expanded from 10 to
20 high-need schools this fall.
Our biggest challenges today are reforming high schools and
increasing funding.
Chicago has a comprehensive high school reform effort underway that
includes intensive coaching and mentoring as well as an overhaul of the
curriculum. It started in 14 schools two years ago and expands to 45 by
this fall and we expect it will yield positive results.
We have also developed a host of programs aimed at transitioning
students into high school, increasing college enrollment, raising
college entrance exam scores, and providing more coaching and
counseling for high school students.
For all our progress, however, we still have a long way to go to
close the achievement gap--and getting there requires more support from
every level of government.
Our state ranks among the worst states in the country for education
funding, providing barely a third of the overall cost. Today, Chicago
spends $2000 less per student than Boston. We spend about half of what
some of our suburbs spend.
We are certainly grateful for every dollar we get from Washington--
and we welcome even more money to expand Head Start, tutoring and
after-school programs.
We also appreciate the core goals of the No Child Left Behind law,
including performance transparency among subgroups and higher standards
for all, but we think the law can be improved in other ways that will
advance the same goals.
Should you take up the issue of reauthorizing or reforming NCLB, we
will gladly provide more detailed comments.
I just want to thank you again for the opportunity to be here.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
We are going to start with the questioning and try to be
concise and not run over because I know my colleagues all have
questions.
But, Chancellor Klein and Chancellor Rhee, you both
mentioned in your statement--and, to some extent, you, Dr.
Hall--it is very often suggested that the system really cannot
perform because these students in many cases are mired in
poverty and bad health and lack of access to resources that
others are, and I do not make light of that argument. I spent
my whole life working with children and families at risk.
But you both touched upon the idea that when you have been
able to develop and work with teachers that have the capacity
and have the effectiveness that they are able to work in these
environments and achieve the results that we have been talking
about or you have been talking about here this morning, and I
just wonder if you might elaborate on that a little bit.
Michelle, you mentioned that--you said, ``quality teachers
in urban districts successfully raise student achievement
levels even in the face of poverty, violence, and high rates of
AIDS.'' Now, see, again, not to minimize that because we want
those children to be free of those--and that is what the
Congress should be working on, but that is not to suggest that
you cannot have success in the schools in those areas as
difficult as it is.
Ms. Rhee. I mean, I see this every single day in our
schools. So, for every one who says that it is not possible, I
can take you into any one of our schools today and show you it
is possible.
I went to a school of ours not long ago where, you know, if
you sort of looked at it from the outside, it was the typical
D.C. public school. Across the street from the school, there is
a liquor store and a nightclub. As I was walking up to the
school, there are broken beer bottles and cigarette butts
everywhere. So it was sort of, you know, a typical school in
many ways.
I walked into the school, walked into one classroom, and
what I saw was absolutely amazing, the fourth grade teacher
teaching a class, and she was teaching a unit on Greek
mythology. So the class was all sort of reading this chapter
book together, and when I walked in, they had gotten to the
point in the story where the teacher said, ``Okay. Well these
kids have traveled back in time, back into the time of Greek
gods, and now they have to get back to the future. So look
across the room at all the posters of the Greek gods and tell
me which god do you think they should call on if they have to
get back, you know, travel back in time?''
So I looked at the wall, and I am looking and sort of
choose my choice, and the first kid raises his hand, and he
says, ``I would choose Zeus because Zeus is the god of gods. He
is the boss of the other gods. If he tells you to do something,
you have to do it. So I figure cut out the middle man and go
straight with Zeus.'' I was like, ``That is a great answer.''
The second kid raises her hand. She said, ``I would choose
this god.'' It was the god of women, children, and families.
``And she said, ``Because these kids who have to travel back in
time, this god--she is going to take care of her people. She is
going to make sure they are okay, so I would choose this god.''
Another great answer.
The third kid raises his hand. He says, ``I would choose
this god.'' It was the god of art, music, and literature. So I
am thinking to myself, ``Okay, Kid. That was a total misfire.''
And then he goes on to say, ``If you remember, the way the kids
traveled back in time is because they found an old Greek lyre,
and they strummed the lyre, and they got transported back in
time. So I figure if they have to go back, it has something to
do with the lyre, they should talk to the god of music.''
These kids gave five different answers before someone came
up with my very lame answer of the god of travel, and what I
saw in that classroom was that, I mean, this teacher was
enthusiastic, she was engaging the kids, they were invested in
what they were doing, 100 percent of them were focused on the
classroom.
I walked across the hallway to the next classroom, exact
opposite----
Chairman Miller. I am going to have you give Dr. Hall an
opportunity here.
Go ahead.
Ms. Rhee. Walked across the hall to the other classroom,
and I saw the exact opposite. It was literally, you know, a
teacher standing at the door, you know, flicking the light
switch on and off, counting down, you know, ``10, nine--I am
waiting. I am waiting,'' you know. Kids were sitting there, and
you are looking at them, and they are like, ``We are waiting,
too, for something to happen,'' and literally in the same
school, you know, the same very, very dilapidated school
building with no air conditioning and, you know, the ceiling
tiles falling off the roof, two groups of kids getting
diametrically opposite schooling experiences because of the
teachers who were in front of them every single day.
Chairman Miller. Dr. Hall?
Ms. Hall. One of the most depressing pieces of data that I
will share with you today is when I got to Atlanta in 1999, we
did a survey of the teachers to find out their perceptions of
what was going on in the public schools at that time, and our
kindergarten teachers, all of us know that kindergarten
teachers are traditionally the most optimistic people. When I
was a principal of an elementary school, if I was depressed, I
would go down into the kindergarten classroom, and I would feel
good again.
Well, 90 percent of Atlanta's public schoolteachers at that
time said they did not believe the children in their classrooms
would graduate from high school--not college, from high school.
It was very depressing.
And as we tried to factor that into everything else we were
doing, I was convinced that that was because the teachers
themselves had not experienced success in terms of teaching and
then ultimately the kids learning, and, of course, we are not
able to change all the teachers, none of us can, but we decided
that we would go at really providing those teachers with a kind
of job-embedded professional development, coaching, mentoring,
and support so that they would change their practices and begin
to experience their success, success in terms of student
outcomes.
I would guarantee you today that if that survey was
administered, 100 percent of our kindergarten teachers would
say not only are they going to graduate high school, but they
are going to graduate from really high-performing colleges
because they now feel a sense of efficacy in terms of how they
are teaching.
At the same time that we got the results of that particular
survey, we also were surveying teachers who had left Atlanta
public schools after a year--anywhere from 1 to 2 to 3 years
in, and 90 percent of them said they came from area colleges
totally unprepared to teach in Atlanta Public Schools. So there
is clearly a linkage between how the teachers feel about their
being able to deliver instruction and how they feel about
outcomes to kids.
Once they begin to be effective, that is not to play down
the impact of poverty and entrenched poverty on our children,
but I still think that once teachers are able to deliver
instruction the way that leads to children learning, it can
help mitigate again some of the expectations that enter the
classroom based on the economic levels of the children.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
My time has run out. I wanted to ask Mayor Bloomberg and
Mr. Duncan about community buy-in. I know that you now have a
report card where the community gets to participate, and in
visiting some of your charter schools, there is a sense that
the community really has adopted this asset as critical to the
future of their kids and their community. Some of the strategic
learning programs that I visited----
If I can impose on my colleagues, I would just like to give
you a quick minute to discuss that kind of involvement where
now the community is having that kind of say.
Mr. Bloomberg. In New York, we have a wealthy business
community. They want to be involved.
Michelle, Joel, and I were out at a conference in Idaho
last week, and somebody came up to Joel and I--we were having a
cup of coffee--and said, you know, ``I am going out there. I am
going to raise a billion dollars, and we are going to fix the
public schools in this system.'' I did not have the heart to
tell him that we spend $15 billion a year in New York City.
Money is great, but the bottom line is this country needs
doers. We can sit around and we can complain and we can talk
about one of the ways of teaching reading versus another or
teaching math versus another. The truth of the matter is we
know what to do.
And I think the parents are there. Parents want to be
involved. They want to help their kids. They do not need to run
the school systems. When we talk about parental involvement,
there is this misconception that the teachers should have to
sit there and let the parents tell them how to teach. They
should not. The teachers are the professionals, and the
management of the schools is who decide how you teach and what
teaching methods.
What the parents need to do is to know what the teachers
need for help at home, and the teachers need to know what the
situation is at home, and one of the things that Joel did,
which I think is a game-changer--and the only thing I did not
like about it was it was not my idea because it was so obvious
when he came up with it. I thought, ``Oh, damn it. I should
have thought of that.''
He put a new person in every single one of our 1,400 public
schools called a parent coordinator. That person's job is to
provide the communications between parents and teachers that
elected officials always talk about, but really do not ever
deliver because they are talking about having another level of
politics involved, another level of elected officials involved.
What we need is the ability to share information, and the
parent coordinators carry a cell phone. You can call 311 to get
their phone number. You walk into the school. It is up on the
wall.
I cannot tell you it is a game-changer at the high school
level, but certainly at the elementary school and even the
middle school level, it is one of the best things, I think,
that Joel ever did. It was adding 1,400 people, but we have
120,000 people that work in our public school system. The
difference is this is providing a real service, and it is that
interaction you talked about.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Duncan?
Mr. Duncan. On the charter school issue, I am just very,
very pragmatic. I just want more schools that work, and, to me,
the ideological battle really misses what is right for
children. What I always say is there is no second grade in the
world that can tell you whether I go to a charter school or
something else. They know whether their teacher cares about
them. They know whether the principal has high expectations.
They know what to say. And we just need to create more great
schools.
Our charter schools in Chicago work extraordinarily well.
We have waiting lists of about 8,000 children, and these are
all schools of choice. No child is ever assigned to them, and
so I always say, you know, the day parents stop asking for
these, I will stop creating them. But there is a tremendous
demand that we need to continue to meet. I am a big fan of the
charters, I have also closed three charters for non-
performance, and so we hold them to a very strict standard.
We have done a couple things differently than other places
around the country. First is a very rigorous front-end process.
We make it very, very tough. We have many more applicants each
year to create more schools than we select. So we are very,
very tough in the screening process, a lot of community
engagement on the front end.
Secondly, every school opens with a 5-year performance
contract, so there is very clear accountability. If they are
not succeeding, we will close them down at the end of that. We
also give them additional autonomy and sort of free them from
the bureaucracy. But, at the end of the day, parents are
desperately looking for these options, and we need to continue
to create a supply to meet that demand.
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much.
And thank you to my colleagues.
Mr. McKeon?
Mr. McKeon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This has been one of the best hearings I have ever
participated in. I want to commend all of you. I wish we could
clone you and have you work in a lot of other places around the
country.
I think, Mayor Bloomberg, when you said we all know what to
do, we just need more doers, I think that really hits the nail
on the head. We all have lots of time. We talk about education,
and then we get in fights about it, and then we get into
partisanship about it, but, meanwhile, a day goes by, a week
goes by, a month goes by, a kid is lost.
I visited a prison in my district, and as I was walking
through with the warden--1,700 inmates--I asked him kind of a
naive question, ``How many of these inmates are college
graduates?'' He looked at me like I was from another plant. You
know, ``Where have you been all your life? None of them.'' I
said, ``How many of them are high school graduates?'' He said,
``Maybe a handful.''
We are spending a lot of money keeping people locked up,
but if we took care of them, a little more preschool education,
a little more resources put into the teachers--you know, the
talk about going into one classroom and seeing fantastic things
happen, going across the hall to another one--we have six
children, 29 grandchildren. Education to me is crucial, and I
visit lots of classrooms. I see some exciting things happening.
We never hear about that. We just hear about the bad things
that are happening.
And I know when our children were in school, we had like
three third grade teachers. Everybody knew which was the best
teacher and the way to get your student in that class. My wife
became PTA president, you have to get involved, and then we
were able to get our children into that class. You know, that
teacher may have been paid less than the teacher on either
side.
We have a lot of screwed-up things that if we go back to
some basics, yeas, we know we need the best teachers, we know
there are different things that create that. Some of it,
though, just is they either have it or they do not.
I wish we could change the way we educate our teachers. You
know, you get somebody that graduates from college. Then they
take their student teaching. They walk in the classroom and the
first day decide they do not like kids. Now they have 4 or 5
years invested. Why don't we have them get in the classroom in
their first year to see if maybe they might like this? And then
why don't we have mentors there to help them to get through
that first year, the second year, and work on their longevity,
and then pay them what they are worth so that they do not move
to private industry?
You know, I was on a school board for 9 years. I was a
mayor. I had a lot to do with education on the school board,
nothing to do with it as mayor. I see, you know, where, as
mayors, you not only have the responsibility, you have the
ability to get something done. That is only in a few places in
the country. Mostly, it is totally separate. The mayor gets
blamed for everything, but has nothing to do with it. I am glad
that we have a few places that are giving, you know, some
authority to go along with the perceived responsibility.
I have a district where we have some large schools, not
compared to any of the cities you come from, but maybe 20,000
students in a high school district. Then I have a district
where we have six students in a high school academy, and we
have a school that was built for 100, and we have 60 kids. Our
problem probably is we cannot get enough kids, you know,
because of declining population in a rural area, and that is
one congressional district, and we sit here trying to solve
problems throughout the whole nation, and there is such
diversity in just my district, and then you compare to
districts to districts.
I have thousands of square miles. I was talking to a friend
from New York who said, ``I can walk around my district in 1
day,'' and then we sit here and try to grapple with those
things and think we can solve all the problems from here, and
what we really need are leaders like you in every school
district in the country, every community in the country,
committed teachers, leaders that make things happen.
I think I could get on a soapbox, but maybe could I ask one
question? You know, we have cut back funding and now, this
year, it looks like almost eliminating the Reading First
program. I would like to ask each of you: What has been the
impact of Reading First program on the academic achievement
scores for the schools in your district? What are some of the
challenges your district faced in implementing the program? And
what is the impact of last year's cut, and what will be the
future impact of this year's elimination of the Reading First
program on the students in your schools?
Mr. Duncan. I am happy to start.
As I talked about earlier, the heart of our education
curriculum strategy is around reading. We think that is the
fundamental school skill, and if our children can read and
write, think critically, express themselves verbally on paper,
they can do anything they want. If they do not do that well,
frankly, nothing else we do matters.
So we have invested very heavily to put reading coaches
into schools, hundreds of reading coaches. Some schools have
two. It was interesting to me that historically we had all
kinds of other specialists, which is important, P.E., art, and
music, but something so fundamental as reading coaches, reading
specialists we did not have, and particularly at the primary
grades.
If we do not build that base, if we do not teach kids to
read, guess where they end up? They end up in special ed, and
they end up dropping out, and they end up in the prisons that
you talked about. And so lack of resources means that we are
cutting back on the number of reading specialists going into
schools, cut back on professional development, and we need to
continue to dramatically invest in those areas that are the
highest leverage, and I do not think any of us could argue
there is nothing on the curriculum side and the instruction
side more important than instruction in reading and literacy.
Ms. Hall. I mean, the impact in Atlanta will be the same.
We have used the Reading First coaches to really provide the
job-embedded professional development I have talked about, and
we will have to find another way because we cannot not fund
that position. We are going to have to look to see how do we
continue to provide literacy coaches.
And we are actually now expanding in Atlanta. We are also
placing literacy coaches in our high schools, but the Reading
First coaches were fundamental because I believe the victory is
going to be won in the elementary schools of America. We have
to get kids performing at or above grade level before they
leave our elementary schools, and, you know, we have been using
our Reading First dollars to provide that kind of support for
teachers.
Mr. Klein. I think, unfortunately, Mr. McKeon, this Reading
First is caught up in one of these ideological fights, and I do
not think it is a constructive fight. There is nobody here who
would not tell you the greatest challenge we have--and it has
to be at the earliest age--is to get our kids reading. You can
pretty well predict what is going to happen to a child
depending on early grade reading.
And the war has become one of a phonics-based curriculum
versus whole language, and I know to anybody outside the
education world--the truth of the matter is kids need phonics,
they need significant, particularly high poverty kids,
vocabulary improvement, which is absolutely critical. They need
to learn to read in context. So they need to read a lot. And,
finally, comprehension. If you can decode, that is essential,
but if you can only decode, it is vastly insufficient.
And when my colleague, Arne, says hold some things tight
and some things loose, I think the school districts ought to
have discretion over certain areas like that so that we can
detoxify all these political fights which have their adherence
to one particular thing.
And, finally, reading curriculum has to be in the hands of
your most talented teachers because that is your greatest
challenge, and that is why I think the federal government every
time, whether it is supporting coaches, supporting people who
will take the reading art form of teaching to a very different
level.
Ms. Rhee. In our analysis of the Reading First program in
the District, what we found was that there were significant
gains being made in the schools that were actually implementing
the program with fidelity, but in other schools that were
supposedly implementing the program that did not, we did not
see very many gains at all.
So I think the lesson for us is that this is all tied back
to human capital. When we did not have a leader in the school
but had a very clear grasp on what the program was supposed to
be doing and how then that leader did not ensure that those
staff members were trained properly, they attended the
training, and they were then implementing the curriculum.
So I think it for us all falls back to the fact that we
have to have a focus on human capital. We have to make sure
that we have leaders with a very clear vision and that they can
manage their staff to ensure that whatever reading curriculum
they are using that they are implementing it well.
Mr. McKeon. Several years ago--if I could just, Mr.
Chairman--we had----
Chairman Miller. You are on your colleagues' time. You can
do whatever you want.
Mr. McKeon. Thank you.
Several years ago, we had a young man sitting right there
who was teaching in the D.C. system, and he said he had been
teaching for a couple of years, and he was ready to quit
because he was supposed to be teaching third graders how to
read, and nobody ever taught him how to teach reading.
Fortunately, somebody got hold of him, principal, they got him
some extra training, and a few years later now, he was fully
enjoying his work and, you know, he was getting satisfaction
the kids were learning. So that intervention was very
important.
But this program, rather than kill it, I would sure like to
see us fix it and keep the funding going out there for reading.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Kildee?
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Klein, you mentioned that Congress should ratchet up
accountability, and how should we do that? We get asked very
often for more flexibility. Can we provide flexibility and
maintain or strengthen accountability?
Mr. Klein. Yes, here is how I think you should do it. Thank
you. I think you should ratchet it up in two ways.
One, I really think we have to move to a growth model.
Every one of us who deals in this area understands the number
of students who are proficient in math can depend on what
community you are in and not what the school is doing, and so
if you focus on progress, you can compare apples to apples.
Second--and I know this is politically complex. My mayor
always says, ``We will never have national standards. The
Democrats will not do standards. The Republicans will not do
national.''--but we need to have a national standard, a
national assessments, so that then everybody can understand, if
you are proficient in math in California and you are proficient
in math in New York, that means the same thing because, right
now, you have different states with different benchmarks. And
Beverly talked about this.
So, to me, if you look at our global competitors, you look
at the countries that are doing well educationally on the
global exams, you look at those countries, they all have
national standards and national assessments, and we could,
instead of having 50 separate set of assessments, if we pooled
our money, brought in the leading experts in the world, people
in industry and people in universities, and said, ``What is an
American child going to need in the 21st century to compete
effectively? Here are the standards. When do you need to master
algebra? When do you need to be able to do physics and
chemistry and all of the other challenges?'' Then I think that
would put real pressure.
Now, you know, it would make it harder for people like if
they were really tough, but I think you have to make it harder
for people like me because it is not about me, it is about my
kids, and 68 percent of American kids exit high school, all
right, out of 100 who start in the ninth grade--68 percent. By
the time they graduate college, 3 years in a 2-year school or 6
years in a 4-year school, only 18 percent out of that 68
percent--and most of them drop out in the first year.
So getting them a high school degree is critical, but if
you only get them a high school degree, you have not begun to
do the work, and the only way to do this is for all of us to
say, ``This is what it means to be an educated kid coming out
of the 12th grade in America today,'' because the piece of
paper and the graduation ceremony are terrific, but if the kid
does not have the skills, we have cheated that kid.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much.
As a corollary to that, Mr. Duncan, you mentioned that
basically goals are good in No Child Left Behind, but how we
get there needs some changes or maybe some flexibility. Could
you expand upon that?
Mr. Duncan. Well, I think philosophically I am pretty much
on the same page, but I think, again, we need these national
standards, national benchmarks, and it has to begin from
international comparison. Our students today in Chicago are not
competing against Chicagoans, against children from Illinois or
against children from New York. They are competing on an
international economy, and the fact that we have 50 different
bars for our children and 50 different hurdles our children are
trying to jump over, that does not make any sense.
And given, I think, the good pressure of No Child Left
Behind, states have incentives to continue to lower standards,
to dummy them down so that more and more students appear to be
passing, and, again, while that helps people politically, it
sets students up for failure later in life, and so I think by
having some very clear, you know, high standards, a clear
common benchmark that we are all shooting for together, but
then give us all lots of autonomy to get there, but then hold
us accountable for the results.
And so I do not think you should tell us how to do it, but
to all be as creative as he can and Michelle and Beverly and
myself, but, you know, hold us accountable for the results and
then watch best practices. So, again, I think this loose-tight
debate, I think, is a really important one, and I think the
initial steps of No Child Left Behind were absolutely in the
right direction philosophically. I think those two levers were
sort in the wrong proportion.
Mr. Kildee. Let me ask you this, too. We are talking
amongst ourselves up here about some differentiated
consequences. Right now, if a school misses by an inch or
misses by a mile, they have missed, and the consequences are
the same. Could you talk about, maybe you two----
Mr. Duncan. Yes, I think that is----
Mr. Kildee [continuing]. Differentiated consequences?
Mr. Duncan [continuing]. Really important. I think often we
are killing an ant with a sledgehammer, and I think we each
have schools literally--I mean, these are sort of the
exception, but it is important--where one or two children did
not meet the bar, and then the whole school is labeled a
failure.
And so I think what you need to do is where certain
children--white, black, Latino, whatever it might be--are not
being successful, we need to focus on those students very
specifically and not label entire schools a failure and do
other things.
Secondly, going back, if you change the model and look less
at absolute test scores, but look at growth, look at gain, that
is a much more precise, much more accurate measure of are you
changing students' lives? What value are you adding to them
every single year? So a different model will help you get where
you are trying to go.
Mr. Kildee. Could Ms. Rhee just respond briefly, Mr.
Chairman?
Ms. Rhee. I absolutely agree. I just talked yesterday with
a principal. Her school did not meet AYP. They missed the math
target by .21 percentage points. Now that school actually saw
huge growth this year. So a level of disappointment from that
school, I mean, and I could not really sort of answer that
question well. It is significant because we have, you know, one
school that is missing it by .21 percentage points and other
schools that are missing it by 21 percentage points. They
cannot be classified, in my opinion, in the same way, and the
real way to look at this is, again, as my colleague just said,
is by growth.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Castle?
Mr. Castle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I, too, think this has been an excellent panel with a lot
of great discussion. I would like to get into a little bit of a
different area, developing some of the things that you have
stated, and that is what we are doing at the federal level and
what we can do.
I am a strong believer that No Child Left Behind has
produced incentives that have been helpful in terms of
education. I think you have struck on that, and, as you, I am
sure, know, there is a lot of dissension about that,
politically here in Congress and certainly among educators in
this country. Time is up. We need to rewrite this, and we were
unable to get that done this year, at least so far, and we go
into continuing with the way it is if we do not rewrite it, and
my sense is we need to continue to work on this.
So my question to you is--and I have heard you. I have
listened to everything you have said here this morning. I have
listened to your suggestions--what concepts or ideas do you
have in terms of how we should handle No Child Left Behind,
and, for that matter, is there any federal role in education
with respect to the reauthorization, the changes in place?
I have listened to the national standards and assessments--
I am, by the way, one Republican who does not believe that is
necessarily a bad idea--and I have listened to the growth
model. I am interested in development of the growth model. Is
the growth model separate from some sort of a measurement of
standards and assessments, or is it in combination with that so
you could have either-or or on the way to meeting certain
standards at some point?
And one other question I would throw in there: Do you
believe in some sort of a uniform graduation rate in this
country? As you may know, the measurement across the various
states is essentially different from state to state with
respect to graduation rates. I happen to believe that we should
have some sort of standardized rate. So I am interested in
that.
I would be interested in your viewpoints, any suggestions
you have in what we could be doing to both get this No Child
Left Behind reauthorization done and perhaps to improve it. It
is an open-ended question to anybody who is willing to
volunteer.
Mr. Bloomberg. Let me first just add one thing. I am not a
professional educator. My background is employing people, and
whether they miss by 1 percent or 10 percent, you either get
the job or you do not.
In New York City--and I assume it is true throughout this
country--we are giving our youngsters high-stakes tests all the
time. The youngster has to decide whether to hang around with
people that have a gun or drugs. They have to decide whether to
drink and drive. They have to decide whether to get pregnant,
get married, stay in school. These are all the high-stakes
tests that our kids are facing every single day.
And the comment of national and testing actually came from
Bill Bennett when he was Secretary of Education, and there was
a movement towards national testing.
I think you have to be careful in terms of setting a limit
or a standard for what percentage of the kids graduate. In New
York City, we have raised our standards, not only in our school
system, but the standards to work in New York City. You have to
have a high school diploma in order to get a job with our
sanitation department--or a GED--and that does not mean
necessarily that all high school diplomas are the same.
In the real world, we do not test our people other than
maybe in the first application for a job whether you have a
diploma. After that, we start to talk to them and see whether
they really know what they are talking about, whether they can
frame a question and understand an answer and work together
collaboratively and collectively.
The danger with just saying X percentage have to graduate
is every state, every school district will just meet that
standard because they want to get the money. If you have a
national test that tries to measure academic achievement and
ability to reason and knowledge of the law and knowledge of
accounting, things that every single one of us has to know--you
know, we tend not to focus on the fact that this is a country
of laws and that all of us have a budget. We have to get a
paycheck every couple of weeks, and we have to figure out how
much we can afford to spend on this and that and the other
thing.
Those are the kinds of things we should measure in testing,
and those should be our objectives rather than just a physical
number. We are trying to raise the number of our students that
graduate, and the papers, the editorial boards, tend to hold
you responsible for having that number higher, and we are all
proud of it when we increase it. But the real answer here is we
are not trying to give our students a piece of paper. We are
trying to give them an education.
Mr. Castle. I agree with that entirely, by the way, Mayor,
and in talking about graduation, I am just concerned about the
differing methods of graduation rates that are used around the
country. I am not trying to determine the number who should
graduate.
Mr. Bloomberg. Everybody measures differently, and I think
of one criticism I have always heard again, again, and again
from Joel and everybody else about No Child Left Behind is you
can dumb down your standards in order to qualify----
Mr. Castle. Exactly.
Mr. Bloomberg [continuing]. And the requirement to be able
to function in a worldwide society is not different from one
place to another.
Mr. Castle. Precisely.
Chairman Miller. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Payne?
I would just say that Mayor Bloomberg is going to have to
leave in about 4 or 5 minutes. If you have a question you want
to direct to him first and then----
Mr. Payne. No. Well, no. Just to commend him on the
outstanding work that he has done in New York. And I was just
going to mentioned that former Mayor Koch graduated from Newark
South Side High School.
But just a question about national standards. Number one--
and, Dr. Hall, you may recall Newton Street School in Newark--
now there is a program at Seton Hall University where they have
the college there, my alma mater Seton Hall, and the teachers'
union and the central office have come together to see about
improving the educational system at that particular school,
which has been a failing school. So we are watching this model
pretty closely to see if that could change things around.
But I just have a question about national standards, which
I think is certainly something that we should strive towards.
However, in our city, even though now we are starting to embark
on a school improvement program, many of the schools in the
city are over 100 years old. I spoke at a graduation of
Charlton Street School about a year or 2 ago, built in 1848.
So, talk about national standards is great, but what about
the inequity in funding? We have the Abbott decision in New
Jersey, we are struggling to continue to have it funded because
we all know that there is totally inequity in funding, I think.
Jonathan Kozol talked about that in ``Savage Inequalities''
when he talked about the difference in school funding, and if
you have a wealthy school system or if you have philanthropic
corporations like, say, we have in New York or Atlanta, you get
a lot of cooperation from the business community. If you are in
an area that has no businesses and has a very low tax base and
you are saying we should have national standards, however,
there is not equity in funding, how do we overcome that?
Mr. Bloomberg. Let me say something before I have to go.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry I do have another
appointment.
As we talked before, my mother graduated from a high school
in your district. The high school is still there, still
functioning, same building. I do not have any idea what the
quality of it was then or is now. My mother did learn to read,
although they made her write with her right hand, and she had
learned to write with her left before then, so she now does it
both ways.
I think two answers to your question: One, we focus on what
we call fair funding. We found when we took office that the
schools where the parents did not have much political power,
which were mainly minority schools, but not always, they got
underfunded by $2,000 or $3,000 a year per capita on a base of
about $14,000 a year.
What we have tried to do when we had more money is we did
not take away money from those that were being highly funded,
but we gave all the money to those who were being lower funded
so that now fundamentally in New York City all schools get
funded by the chancellor the same per capita. There are some
small adjustments for English language learners, small
adjustments for special ed. There are some federal and state
programs that require us to do some things differently, but
fundamentally we are trying within the New York City school
system to give every principal the resources per capita that
the other principals have. That is one answer to your question.
The other thing is it is true that some districts do not
have money and some districts do. New York City exports $12
billion to our state government that then redistributes that
throughout the state to help areas of our state that have not
had the luxury of lots of businesses generating taxes.
And my third answer is life is not fair. I think it is true
that there are parts of this country where they do not have the
tax base, maybe the cost of living is a little bit less, but
not enough, but those kids are going to have to compete on a
world basis anyways, and, you know, the teachers are going to
have to do more with less, and the elected officials are going
to have to find ways to do more with less. They have a greater
challenge.
But sitting around and not giving them an education because
you do not have the resources is not the right answer because,
whether you give them an education or not, they are going out
into the same world with the kids who happen to be luckier, who
happen to grow up from wealthy families or families that look
like the Norman Rockwell painting of two kids and two parents,
or families that value education.
We have a group of kids in our school system. Parents have
come to the United States to work, do not plan to stay here
very long, do not see there is any reason to learn English, and
they come from a tradition where education is not valued. Those
kids need the same education that my kids do. It is tougher for
us to give it to them, and maybe they will not get there, but I
can tell you exactly what happens if you do not give them the
education.
Congressman, you talked about going to the jails. You can
sit there and you can say if you do not get an education--you
can plot statistically, not every one, but on average exactly
what is going to happen to that child for the rest of that
child's life, and shame on all of us if we let it happen. And I
just wanted to say thank you for all of you for your focus----
Chairman Miller. Mr. Mayor, thank you for taking your time.
Mayor Fenty, you face the same problem. I do not know if
you wanted to comment. I know you were also leaving, but if you
wanted to comment on this before you leave----
Mayor Fenty. No, I just want to appreciate your indulgence,
Mr. Chairman. I would just urge, as I leave and the real
experts are going to stay, that if you can, in addition to
funding some of the changes recommended in No Child Left
Behind, look at the teacher quality issue. On the local level,
I know it is a political football and a political nightmare.
On the national level, it is probably even more of one, but
to the extent that we can provide more resources at the local
level so that these four individuals and others like them can
incentivize teachers, rather than having to keep them around
through the tenure and other ways, the children are going to be
a lot better off.
So we are dealing directly with that right now. We have a
lot of support from Congress, and I think we make that
nationwide in the next No Child Left Behind Act, I think the
country is going to be better off for it.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
And, again, thank you for your time.
Mayor Fenty. Thank you.
Chairman Miller. Mrs. Biggert?
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
having this great hearing.
You know, in 1995, I served in the Illinois state
legislature when we turned the Chicago Public Schools over to
Mayor Daley, and I think when you look back in a career and as
a legislator--I think that that will be one of my proudest
moments because I think it really changed the dynamics in
Chicago so much, and I am very proud of that vote, and I am
very proud of Mr. Duncan for all the work that he has done to
make the Chicago public schools so good.
We have been talking a lot about teachers and the
importance of teachers and just what does it take to hire. You
know, even when you have so many people or you do not have, to
hire a really good teacher, what do you look for to make sure
that you have the best available?
Maybe, Chancellor Rhee, you could start with that.
Ms. Rhee. So, before I came into this role as chancellor,
for 10 years, I ran an organization called the New Teacher
Project that was dedicated to recruiting and retaining teachers
in urban school districts across the country, and I think that
what we learned through that process was a few sort of key
things: one, that you really have to think about teacher
recruitment in urban and high-needs rural districts in a very
different way.
The people coming into those challenging situations have to
have a very specific mindset. They have to truly believe that
it is possible for poor minority children to learn at the same
high levels. They have to understand very clearly what the
challenges are that they are going to face in terms of the
poverty and the violence and the sort of environmental factors
that they are going to be confronted with and still believe
that despite all of those obstacles that they are personally
responsible for making sure that every single one of their kids
grows academically, and I think that mindset is one of the most
important things that we can have.
We know that subject area knowledge matters greatly. There
is less sort of evidence about the route that people take into
education having a correlation between that and student
achievement. We have seen that there are lots of alternative
certification programs--Teach for America, the New Teacher
Project, some of the teaching fellows programs that are in
existence--that broaden the net, that bring, you know, talented
mid-career professionals, for example, into teaching, and it is
important to sort of look at how we broaden the number of
people who are potentially interested in education.
And I think that at the end of the day--and we talked a lot
about this amongst the four of us--we have to have a system and
a culture in which we can provide the right incentive. We have
to have good support mechanisms in place for those teachers.
But, at the end of the day, we have to ensure that the teachers
who are producing the dramatic results for our kids are
recognized and rewarded in that way.
The last thing I am going to say is that there is a
tremendous amount that can be done at the systemic level that
can help to recruit the best teachers into the highest needs
school districts. The earlier that school districts hire, the
more likely it is that they will be able to bring in the best
candidates, and there are lots of barriers to being able to
hire teachers early.
There are the teachers' unions' contracts and how they
govern and the movement of current teachers. There are
budgeting issues. There are school closure and consolidation
issues. All of those things have to be moved up in the timeline
so that the new teachers can be hired earlier, in the February
and March timeframe, because that is when the best candidates
are available.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you. I think that was very complete.
So maybe I will turn to another since I do not have too
much time. Mr. Duncan, you have worked, I know, a lot with
parents to bring parents into the schools, and there was some
talk about this, that you do not want to mention that maybe
sometimes parents are trying to get too involved in the
schools.
But how do you get parents involved in their children's
education really, and it is so important, you know, from
probably before birth, so that the kids are ready for school,
but also that they participate, not to run the schools, but
really to back up their kids to help them as they move to the
school system?
Mr. Duncan. I think so often it is very easy to criticize
parents and say they are not engaged enough or that is part of
the problem, and before I came to the board, I worked in the
inner-city community for a long time and saw that parents,
despite whatever education or lack of education they had, were
extraordinarily interested in their children's education and
wanted something better, and so before we blame parents, I
think we need to really be self-critical and look in the mirror
first.
I would say historically we have had a culture in which,
frankly, parents were not invited in. They were supposed to
drop their children at the school door, you know, come pick
them up at the end of the day, maybe come a couple of times a
year for report card pick-up, but they were really kept
outside, and what we are trying to do is dramatically change
that culture.
Going into this fall, we will have 150 schools that are
what we call community schools that are open 12, 13, 14 hours a
day, 6 days a week, with a wide variety of after-school
programming not just for children, but for all their brothers
and sisters and parents--GED classes, ESL classes, family
literacy night, family counseling, pot luck dinners.
We have schools now where you literally have 100 to 150
parents come to school every day not for their children's
education but for their own, and I am just convinced that when
families learn together and where schools truly become the
heart and the center of a neighborhood, a community anchor,
there are just tremendous dividends for children.
And so I really think that we have to collectively continue
to challenge a culture that kept parents out and really think
about how do we invite them, how do we open the doors, you
know, computer classes and many things that we can and should
do that parents want to have to access to, and we should co-
locate all those services in our schools.
I would say our schools are these great community assets.
We have 600 schools, every neighborhood in Chicago. Every one
has classrooms. They all have computer labs. They all have
libraries. They all have gyms. Many have swimming pools. Those
do not belong to me. They do not belong to the engineers'
union. They belong to the community. We have opened 25 health
clinics in the schools.
And so the more we open our doors, the more we get a
mindset in which parents are welcome and needed, I think we can
reach the vast majority of parents. There may be some parts
where we cannot, but we can get a heck of a lot of more than we
are getting today.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Mrs. McCarthy?
Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a lot of questions. So I want to thank everybody for
their testimony, but, hopefully, I will get as many questions
in as I can. A couple of them are going to be to Chancellor
Klein, and then I am going to open up the other questions to
everybody.
I see in July of 2009 the contract that you had with the
teachers and the schools, the principals expires. Do you think
that will have a good chance of being renewed during that time?
Also, one of the things that we sort of thought was
collaborating with one of nine partnership support
organizations hired to provide support for the New York City
schools, and I was just wondering how that worked.
The other thing is when you are looking at the school and
working on bringing the scores up, how have you been dealing
with children that are being served with IDEA learning
disabilities, and have you been able to also reduce class size?
Has that made a difference?
And we are dealing with suburban schools, but, obviously,
we know that. I live in a suburban area. I have several
minority schools, underserved schools, one that has been taken
over by the state for the last 6 years and not seeing too much
of an improvement.
So, if I could throw those questions out, especially on the
performance pay. That was the other thing I wanted to go back
on. Seeing Randi Weingarten now being the head of the AFT, do
you think that she can basically say this is working in New
York, which is certainly a cosmopolitan area where we try to
test an awful lot of things? Do you think she would be open for
us to work with her on the federal level to see if we could get
something like this done?
Thank you.
Chairman Miller. Chancellor Klein, deal or no deal?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Klein. I think the answer is deal. I would not speak
for Randi. I give her a lot of credit for having negotiated
this deal with us. My sense is, like Arne and Michelle and
Beverly have talked about, once people get used to it, it
becomes easier to expand it. I expect it will be expanded. Our
principals are an entirely different field.
In fact, our IDEA students, our students with special
needs, are, indeed, improving. This year, they actually
outperformed the other students in general ed on our exam. They
are still way, way too low, but, sure, they are moving forward.
I think reducing class size--we have reduced it across the
board, not as much as we would have liked because we have
invested heavily in our teachers' pay as a way to retain and
keep, and, you know, in a world of limitless dollars, you know,
I could tell you a million things that I could use more money
for, but you have to make strategic choices.
And I know, speaking for myself, and I believe for those of
us who do this work, teacher quality is the biggest investment,
and we keep doubling down and tripling down in that area, and I
would continue to do so. I wish I could lower class sizes. I
wish I could have more wraparound programs, after school and
everything else, but I am absolutely convinced that the game-
changer in terms of student performance is the quality of the
teachers.
I know Mr. McKeon said before--I thought it was funny, but
it is actually sad--that people know who the best teachers are,
and they get involved and get them for their kids. I tell
everyone that works for me your assignment is to be the voice
for the voiceless.
There are many people in America who have purchase in
public education, know how to get their kids in the best
schools, get their kids to the best teachers, but how about the
kids who really do not have a champion or a rabbi to make sure
that they are taken care of? And that is the assignment of the
rest of us and making sure that the dichotomy that Michelle
talked about of going literally across the hall to two
different classes that are day and night with the same high
poverty kids--we have to redress that. The way I like to say it
is a class of 20 with a poor teacher is not remotely as good as
a class of 30 with a great teacher, and that has been our
principal focus.
Ms. Rhee. Can I make one quick statement on that?
This is where I get myself in trouble. I always get myself
in trouble for being very frank, but I feel like it is
important to do this.
I think that, though there have been some instances across
the country where the school districts have been able to work
in collaboration with the teachers' unions to push pay for
performance and differential pay structures, I think, for the
most part, there is still a significant amount of opposition
and pushback to this.
My colleague in P.G. County, John Deasy, who was trying to
push a pretty, you know, sort of minimal pilot program, you
know, had national folks sending letters out to all of his
members saying, ``Do not vote for this.'' And my own union
president here in Washington, D.C., faces tremendous pressure
from his colleagues saying, ``You better not sign this
contract. It is going to ruin everything for the rest of us.''
So I do not want us to sort of sit here and pretend that we
are all heading down this path of ensuring that we have
performance pay that is based on student achievement levels in
this country. That is not the case. That is not the dynamic
that is in play in most of our school district, and I think
that from my vantage point, being a Democrat, I think it is
incredibly important for the Democratic Party to step up on
this and to really push the unions across the country to say
that we have to recognize and reward our most effective
educators.
If we want teaching to become the profession that we all
know that it should, that has to happen, and that we have to
really challenge and push the teachers' unions and the
leadership right now in this country to have this differential
pay not based on the sort of softer things, but really focused
on student achievement level.
Mrs. McCarthy. I should say the chairman actually tried to
do that, and I still think that we will be working on that with
Leave No Child Behind.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Mrs. McCarthy. I yield back.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Tierney?
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chancellor Rhee, you and I talked a little bit earlier, and
you were talking about the fact that you and your counterpart
in the teachers' union are going to go out into the community.
So I would ask you at this point in time to foresee what you
see as the two or three most significant arguments against
performance pay that will be brought in to those discussions
and your answers and the union's answer to those.
Ms. Rhee. Yes. So the union president and I will be out
talking to teachers, talking to community members about what we
believe the benefits of this contract will be.
For the most part, what we have been hearing is that people
are scared that the system is not going to be fair. So I think
that it is important for us as we go out to talk about a number
of things, first, that teachers will have options about which
pay system they want to be in so that they know that they are
empowered, that all of our teachers know very clearly that
regardless of which option you choose, that every teacher's
salary is going to go up significantly. I think that is an
important thing to think about.
But, most importantly, I think it is giving the teachers
some evidence that we are not going to be making these
decisions capriciously or arbitrarily and that they are not
going to be left just in the hands of principals to make, but
that we were going to be basing those decisions on the data.
I think when you talk like that, one of the first things
that comes up from people, is they say, well, you know, you are
not taking into account the fact that we do not control
everything, you know, our kids are coming in with all of these
sort of strikes against them, and we cannot control the parents
sort of backing us, and that sort of thing, so we cannot really
control whether or not the student achievement levels are going
to move or not, and, at that point, you know, from my vantage
point, is when we have to stay we need educators in our school
district who are saying that, despite all of those obstacles,
you really do believe that as a teacher you have the ability to
move the achievement of your kids, and if you do not believe
that, then this is probably not the district for you to teach
in.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
I think money is a big factor here. Obviously, these
contracts--whatever you think of the contracts that have been
negotiated in the past between municipalities and teachers,
they are there and they have to be dealt with. So, if you are
going to move teachers in a particular direction, they have to
be negotiated, something has to be offered up. A lot of times
that is money, and a lot of our communities say they do not
have the money.
So I am looking at the partnership between mayors and
superintendents and wondering does that have to be the
partnership there, that the mayor has that control over the
school system so that the money is more likely to come when
those deals are struck, or can we still move in this direction
when you have a school committee in charge of the schools--a
school board in a sense--and find a way to do that because most
communities I am aware of do not have financial flexibility on
the school committee. It is going to go to the mayor and the
city council at some point anyway or the board of selectmen or
whatever.
Mr. Klein. That is where I think there is an important
federal role. You know, the marginal dollars in education
matter. The federal government puts in significant dollars, and
I think you could incentivize this by putting in dollars to pay
for excellence, to pay for high-quality, high-achieving
teachers, and then school districts would be able to devise
plans, and I quite frankly think, as I said in my opening
testimony, Mr. Tierney, that would be the best use of federal
money because there is something wrong when our kids with the
greatest needs are not remotely getting their fair share of the
highest quality teachers, and teaching is the magic ingredient
in education.
And so if you were to take the Title 1 monies, for example,
and recast them into significant incentive programs to pay for
people who are getting results tied to a meaningful federal
accountability system so that it would not be arbitrary and
also to say to people if you are a great math teacher, instead
of teaching in this neighborhood, we will pay you additional
with federal dollars to go teach in Central Brooklyn or the
South Bronx. That would have a huge impact.
And I commend this committee because you put this forward,
and we wish you had put it forward in more robust form, but you
put it forward, and I think you have to keep putting it forward
because that is where you are going to get your returns.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Mrs. Davis of California.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to all of you. You are an impressive group,
and it is wonderful to have you here.
I would like to zero in on one issue of the investing in
quality teachers--and it is a bias of mine, so I will state
that upfront, and I think the chairman knows that--National
Board for Professional Teaching.
And, Mr. Duncan, you have mentioned the growth in 6 years,
11 to 800 and something, I think. Could you tell me just a
little bit more about how you got there in terms of the
incentives?
And I would really be interested, Chancellor Rhee, also in
your appraisal of that because I think one of the concerns that
we all have is how do you get the best teachers into the
schools that need them the most, and yet, on the other hand,
you really have to build within your teacher cadre the best,
and I am wondering whether there are other--I know there are
other vehicles, it is certainly not a panacea in any way, but
ways to help teachers go in that journey of collective
teaching.
As far as I know, that is one of the best tools, and I
would really be interested in whether that is something that we
should put some higher priority on in No Child Left Behind,
find a way to talk about it so, you know, it does not include
the bias of national standards. Help me to try and think about
this a little bit more.
Mr. Duncan. We made a big bet on this for a couple of
reasons. First of all, I worried a lot about a lack of career
ladders for teachers, how do you sort of keep them motivated,
how do you not lose them. I am also a big believer in external
standards because I always worry about the dumbing down of
local stuff. So I, for example, I love the international
baccalaureate curriculum. I love advanced placement because
there is a bar that we all have to reach.
Well, NBC, National Board Certification, is that same
national standard. It is very, very rigorous. As you know, only
about half the teachers roughly that go through each year pass.
But we started early on. We just thought this was a huge area
where, again, we had not played at all where we could get
dramatically better.
And what I like most about it is it is basically your best
teachers going back to get better, and I know this has gotten
large. Early on, I tried to meet with all the new National
Board Certified teachers every single year, and what I heard
consistently is they all said it was about the hardest thing
they had ever done professionally, and they also said it was
the most valuable. Not one ever came back and said it was not
worth the journey.
And I just think when we talk to our students about being
lifelong learners and continue to improve, we need to walk the
walk, not just talk the talk, and so when you have your best
teachers going back and getting better, I think it just sets a
tone that is so critically important.
Mrs. Davis of California. Can I ask you what incentive did
you use? Do you think it should be monetary? Otherwise, what--
--
Mr. Duncan. Well, it is almost embarrassing. We gave some
very, very small monetary incentives, and we had a great
partnership. This is actually a total win-win with the union.
The union was, you know, right along for the ride----
Mrs. Davis of California. Yes.
Mr. Duncan [continuing]. And we have an outside fund, the
Chicago Public Education Fund, a local foundation that has been
a great partner, who really took the lead in driving this. We
gave some small financial incentives early. We actually
recently negotiated the teachers' contract, and, for the first
time, we actually put a little bit more money in there. It is
about, you know, $750 a year.
So folks are not doing this for the money. Yes, I think it
is important to have that. What we really tried to create was a
sense of prestige, that these are really our future leaders and
how do we better use them. I would love to--we are very
resource constrained--pay them more, but they are not doing it
for the money. They are doing it because they think it is the
right thing to do.
Mrs. Davis of California. And quickly, because we are on
limited time and I want to go to the others as well, how does
that jive with the idea that we should be rewarding people for
the achievement of their students, because one of the major
criticisms is that that does not guarantee that they are
getting kids where they need to go?
Mr. Duncan. It does not. That is a great question. I do not
think it is contradictory. I think we should absolutely we
reward folks for student performance and for growth. I think
part of how those get better is going through the NBC process.
So I think this is a strategy for teachers, as they continue
through that career ladder, for them not to get stale and
continue to get better and challenge themselves. I do not see
this as mutually exclusive at all.
Mrs. Davis of California. And, Dr. Hall, you can chime in,
too.
Chancellor Rhee?
Ms. Rhee. I think a couple of things. One, we have been
looking very specifically at how to move away from the input,
measuring the inputs of teachers and more looking at the
output, so basically measuring teacher quality by the
effectiveness of the teachers in the classroom.
And I think one thing that is worth saying is that--you
asked the question how do we make sure that we get the best
teachers to the children who need them the most, and one of the
things that I think that is relevant to say here, particularly
as we are talking about differentiated compensation--and
Chancellor Klein alluded to this earlier--is that it is
important not just to give a financial incentive to people who
are moving into lower-performing schools or more high poverty
schools because, quite frankly, we have lots of teachers in
those schools right now who are not performing particularly
well, and to subsidize those people, in my mind, is a waste of
money.
It has to be coupled with if you are showing results, if
you are working in one of those schools and you are producing
results for kids, then something should absolutely click on and
you should get some kind of a differential pay, but we should
not incent people simply for being at those schools. So that is
the first thing.
I think the second piece----
Chairman Miller. I am going to have to cut you off.
I know Dr. Hall wanted to respond, and I have to get
through these. We are going to have votes here in just a
minute, so I am going to marshal the time a little more. I am
sorry to do that, Michelle.
Dr. Hall, did you want to comment on----
Ms. Hall. I just wanted to say we, too, have been
supporting the National Board Certified teachers' development.
The numbers are increasing in Atlanta public schools for all of
the reasons that Arne articulated.
We do have a career ladder for teachers in Atlanta because
we think that is a part of the problem. Before, if you were a
master teacher, the only way you could see yourself moving
forward would be to leave a classroom and we are trying to
change that through having these different roles--model teacher
leader roles, coaching, et cetera--and we have felt that the
National Board Certified teacher process helps to qualify those
people.
But, of course, we are also looking at whether or not these
people were good teachers to begin with looking at what they
were doing before we vet, and we have provided small monetary
incentives for them to participate. At one time when we had
Governor Barnes in Georgia, he also had at the state level some
statewide incentives for the teachers to participate, but we
have continued to do that locally because we are trying to get
teachers who are already demonstrating that they could do the
job to really becoming more proficient. We think this process
leads to that, and then we utilize them in the system.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Davis of Illinois?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
You know, as I listened to the discussion, I could not help
but be reminded of two of my experiences. One, I spent 6 years
working in probably one of the most difficult situations in the
Chicago schools. I never will forget the day that we collected
38 handguns, five blackjacks, four pairs of brass knuckles, and
10 switchblades. It has been a while.
But my point is and my question, Arne, is I know that you
have been successful beyond the concept of monetary incentives.
I mean, yes, you have the grant, but that has not covered
nearly the kind of impact that has been needed to get teachers
into some of the underperforming schools and some of the
difficult situations.
I also served on the local school council at the jail, and
you have teachers in there.
What are the other approaches, though, that you have used
beyond the notion of pay for performance or monetary incentives
to get teachers into some of these difficult situations?
Mr. Duncan. I think we have all tried to create a sense of
mission, and I think teachers are not in teaching to make a
million dollars, and I think any money we give them is a small
piece of what this is about.
Teachers go into teaching because they are very idealistic,
because they want to make a different in students' lives. They
come in with the best of intentions and, historically,
unfortunately, we have burned out too many of them.
And so what we have to do is to continue to fuel the sense
of idealism, to support them, to listen to them. Many teachers
struggle with classroom management skills, many teachers
struggle when they do not feel listened to, and so how we
better mentor, how we better support, and how we really put a
spotlight on those teachers that are doing a great job----
As you know, we have taken teachers on bus tours of
communities that historically they might have been scared of.
We have used local ministers and local business leaders to
really embrace them and say we want you to come to North
Lawndale, we want you to come to Austin, we want you to come to
Englewood, we will be here to support you, and I think teachers
want to be part of that broader community that is making
significant changes.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much.
Mayor Bloomberg discussed this with Representative Payne a
great deal before he left, the notion of national standards,
and I adhere to that, and I accept that, and I understand the
need for that. But I am concerned. How do we compensate for
some of the funding inequities that we know exist at local
levels where you may find one school district spending one-
third or half of what another school district is spending per
pupil?
Are there some approaches to compensation where at least in
terms of the labeling, we look for some additional support or
additional help for those districts that have putting forth the
best good forth effort that they have and yet they are going to
come up short because of all the inequities that already exist?
Mr. Klein. I think it is a great question, and I know the
mayor talked about it. Let me add two thoughts.
I think we start on the same page, that is lowering the
standards because you invest less resources is not going to
serve our children. I think the reason to have the standards is
to say this is what the future of this country depends on.
And the second thing I would do, if I were working through
all these issues, and I am just going to put out an idea, the
devil is in the details, but you could have a local state index
of what is expected in this investment and then tie federal
dollars to those expectations.
Obviously, some communities have far less resources. Some
states use one formula across the state. Other states allow it
to be based on real estate taxes, which is inevitably
inequitable because higher valued communities are able to put
more money. But if I were to do this, I would certainly try to
create some form of national index.
And the thing that everybody has to understand is we are in
this together. You know, people talk about kids in prison, kids
who are unemployed or underemployed, those are going to be
costs to this nation. They are not going to be costs to my
community. They are going to be costs to this nation. And, on
the other hand, successful kids competing in a global economy
are going to be benefits. So, if I were to do it, I would work
through such a formula.
Mr. Duncan. If I could add quickly, what I really think is
if we went to national standards, that would force these hard
conversations around funding gaps that people sort of skirt
now, and if people really understood how critically it was
important to get everyone to this bar where you had these huge
inequities, I think it would shine a spotlight on funding that
is separate and unequal, and so I think it would help us get to
where we need to go and not take away from the top, but bring
up the bottom, which I think we desperately need to do.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Well, Dr. Hall, would you----
Ms. Hall. I would also like to add that there has been a
real perception out there that there is an awful lot of waste
within many of our urban school districts in terms of our
business operations and what we are really doing with the
dollars that we do have, and I think now there are enough
districts that are doing a good job of managing the dollars,
driving more and more as best they can to instruction, and
people often look at that also and begin to change the
conversation in terms of what is really going on as opposed to
continuing this belief that we really do not know what to do
with the dollars when we do have them, and I think that is a
part of the conversation we certainly did not enter into today,
but needs to also be heard.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Altmire?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Altmire. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Each of you, in your testimony, talked about standardized
testing and the idea of teaching to the test versus a depth of
understanding of concepts, and I wanted, in, you know, what is
going to be 4 minutes for four of you, if you could each
quickly just summarize what is the evidence, to your knowledge,
that indicates that even though test scores may have gone up--
or is this your experience--that the depth of understanding of
subject matter and curriculums has gone down? What is your view
on that argument?
Mr. Klein. So my argument is that the reason I think the
depth of understanding has gone on is because I have read the
tests and I know what it takes to pass a math test and to pass
an English language arts test. I would be the first to admit--
and, indeed, one of the reasons I am a proponent of national
standards and national assessments--is we need to raise our
standards and we need to raise the quality of our testing.
Having said that, in New York City, when a child reads at
level one on a grade of four on our standardized test, that
means that child does not read, and that is a failure, and if
you do not read, then your ability to do deep cognitive
thinking, your ability to engage in significant problem solving
is not going to happen. So I would be the first to say we could
raise the standards and make them harder.
But do not buy the argument--I think it is a fallacious
argument--that when more kids are reading on grade that does
not mean that their education is not improving. Should it
improve much more? Are there other things we should test? Yes.
But when Beverly Hall reports the results she is reporting,
or Michelle or Arne, when they report those results, what that
reflects is increased--not yet perfect, but increased--teaching
quality and learning in our schools, and there is not a teacher
in the world who does not think that a level one student is
performing at an entirely different level from a level three,
and that is what is so critical to this discussion.
Mr. Altmire. Anyone else?
Mr. Duncan. Just quickly, I think, again, the quality of
the assessment is really the key to your question. I think it
is one of the things that Illinois has done pretty well, and
the tests themselves are a lot less about filling the bubble
sheet and more about writing essays and critical thinking and
reading the passage and, you know, articulating your views upon
that. I think those are the skills our students need to be
successful. The quality of the assessments is the key to your
question.
Mr. Altmire. Great.
Ms. Rhee. That would be the same because we have what we
call within the D.C. assessment the constructed response where
we have open-ended questions and students are required to solve
proof or write essays, and that is a very good indication of
the quality of instruction that they are getting.
I think the other thing that we have tried to really talk
to our principals about is the fact that the research shows
that children who have access and exposure to a broad-based
curriculum, including music and art, et cetera, actually do
better academically. So we are trying to move schools and
principals away from just thinking about how do we only teach
these tested subject areas to the understanding that a broader
curriculum is going to result in better academic achievement
overall.
Ms. Hall. And I will just close by saying what I said
earlier. When I went to Atlanta, I knew that when the students
began to show gains that people would question whether or not
it had to do with the type of assessment. Hence, our
volunteering to participate in the National Assessment of
Educational Progress TUDA initiative, and I think that has
validated.
Sure, I was scared because we were digging out of a very
deep hole, and I knew initially we were not going to look that
good, but over time, what it has said is, yes, the gains are
real. What is showing up on the state assessment is also
showing up on the National Assessment of Education Progress,
and we are not there. I mean, we have a long way to go, but we
are showing sustainable, you know, progress every year building
one year on the other, grade level by grade level, which says
that the teaching and learning is improving across all the
schools.
Mr. Altmire. Thank you all very much.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Hinojosa?
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to commend you for bringing us the best of the best
of witnesses to come and talk about these issues that are so
important to us.
I am going to be brief in saying that I strongly support
the points that you all have made, especially with the
foundation of the art of learning, and that is to have reading
and writing literacy and that that can possibly be started
early in the first, second, and third year of a child, to have
family literacy, which teaches parents the importance of that
art of loving books so that they can read and write early,
first, second, third, fourth year.
So that leads me then to the concern that I want to
address, and that is the graduation rates. Our crisis in
graduation rates is particularly concentrated in our large
urban school districts, and I would ask Chancellor Klein and
then Dr. Duncan of Illinois to please address the question that
I am going to carefully word.
You need to know that Congressman Davis here and
Representative Bobby Scott, Raul Grijalva from Arizona, and I
introduced the Graduation Promise Act to address the schools
that are struggling the most to produce high school graduates.
So my question is what graduation rates do your schools need to
meet the adequate yearly progress either by meeting the target
or making safe harbor that impacts the No Child Left Behind?
Mr. Duncan. A couple thoughts: If you are trying to stop
the dropout rate, you cannot wait until junior, senior year.
You have lost those students. So we have tried to put a huge
focus on freshman and sophomore year.
We have created a scorecard that we produce every single
year for every high school. One of the most important
indicators is what we call the freshman on track rate.
Mr. Hinojosa. Okay.
Mr. Duncan. We put a huge amount of our internal
accountability system, how we rate principals, how we pay them,
based upon their ability to drive the freshman on track rate
because if you are waiting to--our graduation rate is a 5-year
cohort rate, and if you wait until the end of that, you have
lost those students, and so we tried to put a huge spotlight on
what goes on during that freshman year. What we have seen is a
huge drop for us between eighth and ninth grade around
attendance, and, obviously attendance, when you are missing
days, leads to truancy which leads to dropout.
So they actually brought back 19,000 of our incoming
freshman this year a month early for a program called Freshman
Connections to get a series of academic supports, but also
social and cultural, and ease that transition to high school.
There are lots of other things we are trying to do, smaller
schools, more innovative schools. Half of our new schools are
high schools. So there is a disproportionate push there.
But at the end of the day you have to do it much earlier
than we have thought about. What we are doing is holding
schools each year accountable for dramatically increasing their
freshman on track rate, and then over time, we think that will
lead to driving down those dropout rates.
Mr. Hinojosa. Very good answer.
Chancellor Klein?
Mr. Klein. I agree it was a very good answer, and I would
echo it. We are doing very similar things.
We look at ninth grade to tell because you can almost
predict the kids who do not accumulate the credits and do not
pass the necessary state tests in the ninth grade--they are on
a spiral downward.
What we have done in New York--we have shut down about 40
large dysfunctional high schools, and we have opened up--we are
working with the Gates Foundation and others--250 new small
high schools, and we have almost in those schools doubled the
graduation rate. You know, we put a lot of high poverty kids
who were 2 years behind in a school with 3,000 kids, and we
wonder why they do not succeed, and we have totally transformed
that.
The final thing--and I think this came up in some of the
questioning--I would say is graduation rates vary so much both
from the way different states calculate them and also from the
requirements they set. So, to me, in New York, we just raised
the standard--and I supported my commission around this--from a
passage rate of 55 percent to a passage rate of 65 percent in
order to get your degree on the Regents, the state exams.
Now that is going to make it harder for me to graduate
kids, and that could negatively affect my graduation rate, but
the truth is if you cannot get 65 percent on a math or an
English Regents, it does not matter that you get a degree. You
will not be prepared. So I think Congress could do that.
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you, Chancellor. Good answer.
Mr. Chairman, do I have one question----
Yes. To Chancellor Rhee, what are you doing to ensure that
you have enough well-prepared teachers for students who are
English language learners?
Ms. Rhee. We are putting in place a very aggressive
recruitment effort on the front end. We are looking
specifically to recruit mid-career professionals through a
program called D.C. Teaching Fellows, so people who have the
content knowledge and the ability to speak very fluently in
another language who might be working in another profession and
giving those people incentives to become certified through
their first year of teaching.
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Miller. Ms. Woolsey?
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, wonderful witnesses. I have learned so much
from you today.
My background before I got here was human resources. I was
a human resources professional for 20 years, and I am a huge
supporter of pay for performance. I actually designed pay plans
and performance evaluation systems, trained and implemented
over the years.
My companies were high-tech manufacturers. So I know
absolutely for sure that when you are measuring an assembler or
a technician that you can measure quite easily because they
have widgets that they work with, the widgets are all the same,
and you measure the quality of a printed circuit board when it
is finished. It either works or it does not work. And so you
can measure quality.
But when it came to measuring employees who actually had
experience and responsibility over other people, it became much
more difficult. So we know that children and students and
teachers are not widgets. We know that we cannot measure, if
they are plugged in, if they work or not, because they are all
designed differently. And I know for sure that one of
challenges you have in introducing pay-for-performance programs
is to make sure that they are fair and objective and
defensible.
So would you tell us how you are working on keeping your
systems, your programs, fair and objective and defensible,
because that is what it is going to take, I believe, to get all
the teachers to buy into what would be in their best interests
in the long run?
Dr. Hall?
Ms. Hall. Well, we have come at pay for performance a
little differently from everybody else here, I think. We
decided that we would set specific targets, student achievement
targets, school by school based on where the school is and
where it needs to be in order to be successful, and that we
would reward the entire school community if they meet those
targets.
It has been transformational--and that is not being
overstated--in terms of its impact on the school community
coming together and everyone taking ownership ultimately for
student achievement results. Whether you are a core teacher, a
non-core teacher, whether you are, you know, the bus driver who
needs to get the kids there in time in the morning and
understands why, everyone is invested in whether or not the
school meets 100 percent of its targets, 90 percent, 80
percent, because they get compensated proportionately up to 70
percent or more.
And so we have found that people have found that to be
extremely fair. Even our ``higher-performing'' schools who
initially found the targets to be even tougher because they are
almost where they need to be, but they still have groups of
students that they need to move and more students they need to
have exceeding standards, they, too, have come to embrace the
notion that paying everyone who meets these targets--and each
year, we recalculate them based on how the school has done the
year before--is fair and equitable, and so----
Ms. Woolsey. So they each got the same amount of dollars or
the same----
Ms. Hall. Depending on the percent----
Ms. Woolsey [continuing]. Percentage?
Ms. Hall. Well, no. The classified employees, the non-
instructional, get a different scale from the teacher and the
principals, but, yes, they all get some compensation based on
whether or not the school meets 70 percent or more of their
targets.
Mr. Klein. What we did on that was actually very similar,
but it had a fascinating twist in it and we negotiated it with
the union, and that is if we give each school a target, you are
expected to move your kids up by X percent, if you meet the
target, for each teacher in the school, you get $3,000. So if
you have 100 teachers, you get $300,000.
Then you form in the school a committee, a compensation
committee, which you will be very familiar with, and that has
the principal and his designee and two teachers elected by the
teachers. The four of them sit down, and they now take that
$300,000 and divide it up. They can give everyone the same. The
one thing they cannot do under contract is base it on
seniority, and, this year, 200 of our schools were eligible, I
think a significant number are going to get those bonuses, and
then we will see what kind of differentiation.
But do it at the local level and let there be some
creativity.
Mr. Duncan. A couple quick things: I think the idea of not
being all or nothing, but gray data so the real high performers
get dramatically more, and, you know, you can participate at
different levels.
Secondly, obviously, the devil is in the details. How you
compensate the P.E. teacher, the librarian, again, you have to
look at the whole school and look at the growth of that school
so that everyone buys in.
And then, third, I think something we have all tried to do
is not just talk about teachers, but focus on every adult in
the building--the custodian, the security guards, the lunchroom
attendant. When you go into a very high-performing school,
every adult in that building is saying, ``Are you taking your
homework home? Where is your backpack? What is going on?''
And so we are really trying to not do us versus them, but
get everyone pushing the same direction. The idea of team, I
think, is really important.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Sarbanes?
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I was the liaison for the city-state partnership for 8
years, which was the partnership that you are familiar with,
Chancellor Rhee, in Baltimore City between the State of
Maryland and Baltimore City. It was a unique governance
structure. It remains unique in the country, I think, because
the governor and the mayor of Baltimore jointly appoint the
board that oversees.
And the mayors are not here, but my question is about
governance structures. We have one exception. But how important
do you think it is that the mayor have the control over the
system that is indicated in a number of these, or is it just
getting the right people because you could say there are four
or five models for the way you govern things. You could get the
right people to work, and everybody will say the model is a
great one. If you get the wrong people, it will not and they
will say the model is no good. So just your thoughts real
quick.
Ms. Rhee. So I would say it is a little of both. I think,
having worked with most of the large urban school districts in
this country over the past 15 years, I will say that I think
that the school board structure is a very, very difficult one
to navigate through.
I have worked in cities where the business community has
come together to sort of, you know, elect a slate of reform-
minded school board members, and I think something happens when
you become a school board member that you sort of lose your
mind or something. and then they all kind of, you know, go off
the reservation.
So I think it is very, very, very difficult to have a
school board structure where, you know, you are not sort of
caught up in the politics. I think there is no way in my mind
that I would have been able to make the reforms that I have
over the past year without the full backing of the mayor. There
is just no way that it would have happened.
Mr. Sarbanes. Dr. Hall, do you want to respond to that
because you have a different situation, right?
Ms. Hall. Yes. You know, I went to Atlanta from Newark,
and, at the time, I was the state-appointed superintendent of
Newark. There was no board. If you recall, when the State of
New Jersey took over that system, the board was eliminated, and
the superintendent was sort of the czar, and that had both its
pluses and its minuses because what happened was a tremendous
alienation from the community feeling that this is being
imposed on them.
And I guess Atlanta where there had been a history of
problems with the school boards and the superintendent--I spoke
about the superintendent's level when I got there, and what we
had, however, in Atlanta was a community, I guess, feeling that
this just had to stop. They had had enough. They had reached
the point where they were going to hold both the superintendent
and the board accountable for getting this thing done, and we
also had a governor at that time, Governor Barnes, who was also
very, very fed up with what was going on with the Atlanta
Public Schools.
Mr. Sarbanes. Okay.
Ms. Hall. So, when we had all those forces working
together, we were able to put in place a board and to put into
the law governing the Atlanta Public Schools certain
requirements from the board. There is a very strong ethics
component in the charter governing Atlanta Independent School
District that if board members actually step what I call below
the line into managing the District, there are very real
consequences, including removal from the board of education.
Mr. Sarbanes. Okay. To be continued. Thank you.
Chairman Miller. To be continued.
Thank you very much for your time, your expertise, and all
the work that you are doing in the districts.
And members will have 14 days to submit extraneous material
and questions for the hearing record
And the committee will stand adjourned.
Thank you to everyone.
[Statement of the National Alliance of Black School
Educators, submitted by Mr. Miller, follows:]
National Alliance of Black School Educators,
310 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE,
Washington, DC, July 16, 2008.
Hon. George Miller; Howard P. McKeon; Mike Castle;
Committee on Education & Labor, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Honorable Committee Members: On behalf of our President Dr.
Deborah Hunter-Harvill and the National Alliance of Black School
Educators (NABSE) and our 140 affiliates, we appreciate this
opportunity to make further comments beyond our September 10th
testimony on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Our
organization has over 5400 members, with a structure comprised of
commissions and affiliates that represent teachers, school board
members, retired educators, superintendents of schools, central office
staff, administrators, principals, and higher education faculty and
researchers. The diverse professional roles of our members offer wide
expertise that produces rich and coordinated conversations and actions
that speak directly to the needs of children of African descent. NABSE
continues to commend you on your efforts to improve our nation's
educational opportunities. As the Congress moves forward on its
reauthorization of the ESEA, your precedent-setting action of providing
America's citizenry with your thinking in draft discussion documents is
powerful. We urge you to continue this transparency throughout the
process of reauthorizing the ESEA. We would like to direct our
commentary today to the issue of quality education as a right for every
American child, or as popularly termed ``Education as a Civil Right.''
There are three views on how to ensure ``Education as a Civil
Right.'' The first is to amend the United States Constitution to
include education as an explicit fundamental right. The second is that
education is an implicit fundamental right under the current U.S.
constitution and that a future Supreme Court should confirm this right
when it comes before The Supreme Court again. The third view is that
education is already an explicitly recognized constitutional right
under all fifty state constitutions and need only be appropriately
implemented.
The National Alliance of Black School Educators (NABSE) wishes to
explore the third concept, with a focus on Congress's role in assisting
states in fulfilling their constitutional obligations and Congress's
responsibility, pursuant to the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment, to do so. Forty eight years ago, Congress and
education advocates joined on a path toward leveling the playing field
intentionally for underserved children. The authorization of the ESEA
of 1965, coupled with provisions of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, initiated the appropriate and necessary role of the federal
government in guaranteeing equal educational opportunity nation wide.
Notwithstanding the important impact of this legislation, neither
state nor federal efforts have yet produced the same educational
resources for African American and other minority and disadvantaged
students that are available to other groups. It is in the national
interest to markedly increase the educational resources and financial
capital available to poor children of African descent, poor schools,
and poor school districts. It is precisely for this reason that the
federal government must continue to play a strong supplemental role.
Research shows that the level of educational attainment is heavily
dependent on the quality of the educational opportunities over a long
period of time. However, in playing that supplemental role through its
carrot and stick approach, we suggest that Congress anchors another
concept in its reauthorization.
A tremendous amount of language and ink are spent in the current
law on accountability, bench marks, sanctions, and mandatory
restructuring. We have always supported measures of accountability;
however, we propose that that accountability more rigorously be applied
at the state level. It is, in fact, the states who have the
constitutional authority and obligation to guarantee that Education is
a Civil Right.
The legal grounding of educational rights has changed considerably
over the history of the ESEA. At the time of ESEA's first enactment,
state educational rights were entirely undeveloped. All fifty states
had constitutional clauses that obligated them to provide education,
but the import of the clauses was largely ignored or unenforced. In
subsequent years, however, state supreme courts established that these
clauses guarantee a certain qualitative level of education, warrant
application of state equal protection to educational funding schemes,
or create a fundamental right to education. Based on these conclusions,
courts have ordered major remedies in over half of the states. Even
when remedies were not forthcoming, courts still established that
students have a state constitutional right to education.
Three important principles have emerged from these state court
decisions, some of which reveal that the traditional thinking about
education and the federal role are no longer accurate. First, the
constitutional responsibility for delivering education rests solely
with the state. School districts only exercise delegated authority. The
state always remains responsibility for ensuring that school districts
have sufficient resources to deliver education and that they deliver it
in a manner consistent with constitutional standards. Any failure in
these respects is ultimately attributable to the state. Second, the
constitutional right to education has quantifiable and qualitative
components. These components are explicitly identified in state Supreme
Court decisions and in the expansive statutory and regulatory
frameworks of every state. Third, federal involvement in education does
not jeopardize principles of federalism. Congress's current legislation
poses no risk because its role has been limited to supplemental funds
and entails little, if any, substantive monitoring of educational
opportunities. However, even an effort in regard to substantive
measures would no longer pose federalism concerns because states have
developed their own standards, on which Congress need only to rely.
Given the changes in state educational rights, the nature of
Congress's role must also change. Now more than ever, it is incumbent
upon Congress to incorporate in its role the monitoring of substantive
opportunities that students receive, and ensuring they are equal. Past
objections to such a role are largely premised on the same rationale
that dominated the Supreme Court's decision in San Antonio v.
Rodriguez. The Court rejected the federal courts' substantive
involvement in education primarily for two reasons. First, at the time,
there was a lack of any meaningful or enforceable state rights to
education. Second, the Court's believed it was incapable of making
qualitative judgments about education without usurping states' rights
and exceeding judicial competency. Since San Antonio, state
constitutions and state supreme court decisions have resolved both of
these issues by explicitly recognizing educational constitutional
rights and defining their qualitative components. In fact, these very
developments in state law now dictate that Congress must act.
Congress has an obligation, pursuant to the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment, to ensure that states are, in fact,
delivering an education consistent with the states' own qualitative
measures. Doing so does not require Congress to make any substantive
decisions about education. Rather, it simply entails Congress
monitoring whether states are meeting their respective substantive
constitutional obligations. States are free to determine what type of
education they wish to provide, or offer no education at all. But once
a state exercises its discretion to provide education as a
constitutional right and it determines that right has qualitative
components, the federal equal protection clause imposes an obligation
to provide that right to all students on an equal basis. Thus, it is
also Congress's responsibility to ensure that it does not allocate
funds to state systems that deliver unequal educational opportunities
in violation of equal protection. Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment
specifically authorizes and obligates Congress to further the dictates
of equal protection through its legislation.
In too many communities, data reveal that certain students are not
receiving educational opportunities that comport with their state
constitution. In most states, poor, minority, and rural school
districts struggle to provide an adequate education, while their
suburban counterparts have all of the requisite resources. Such systems
fail the requirements of equal protection, and Congressional action
that sanctions or furthers these failures is inconsistent with
Congress's own equal protection responsibilities.
Congress, however, can separate itself from equal protection
violations and, in fact, further equal educational opportunities in two
ways. First, it can require the federal government to monitor whether
states are meeting their own qualitative constitutional
responsibilities in education, conditioning the receipt of federal
funds on states' meeting their own standards, or making progress toward
them. Second, Congress can use its spending power to assist states in
closing the gaps of unequal educational opportunities. The amount of
supplemental funds it has provided in the past, and the manner in which
it has disbursed them, have been insufficient to close these gaps.
Congress must increase the spending levels and it must adjust the
criteria by which it awards these funds to ensure that the funds
equalize opportunities between schools, rather than only within
schools. Ultimately, such changes are consistent not only with
Congress's equal protection obligations, but also with its own stated
purpose of the ESEA: To respond to ``the special educational needs of
low-income families and the impact that concentrations of low-income
families have on the ability of local educational agencies to support
adequate educational programs'' and ``to expand and improve their
educational programs by various means (including preschool programs)
which contribute particularly to meeting the special educational needs
of educationally deprived children.''
Respectfully Submitted,
Quentin R. Lawson, Executive Director,
National Alliance of Black School Educators.
Dr. LaRuth Gray, Consultant,
to the NABSE Board of Directors.
______
[Questions submitted to witnesses and their responses
follow:]
U.S. Congress,
Washington, DC, July 24, 2008.
Hon. Michael R. Bloomberg, Mayor,
City of New York, New York, NY.
Dear Mayor Bloomberg: Thank you for testifying at the July 17, 2008
hearing of the Committee on Education and Labor on ``Mayor and
Superintendent Partnerships in Education: Closing the Achievement
Gap.''
Representative Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX), chairman of the Higher
Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness Subcommittee and
member of the Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education
Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in writing to the following
questions:
1. In the Department's report, there is no data provided from
Illinois or New York on the academic achievement of English language
learners in the content areas. How do you hold schools and the district
accountable for ensuring that English language learners achieve to the
same standards as all other students and for ensuring that they have
full access to the curriculum in a manner that is understandable to
them as required under the Supreme Court case Lau v. Nichols?
2. What graduation rates do your schools need to meet to make AYP
either by meeting the target or making ``safe harbor''?
3. I along with Rep. Scott, Rep. Grijalva, Rep. Davis, and many of
my colleagues on this committee introduced the Graduation Promise Act
to address the schools that are struggling the most to produce high
school graduates. What are your views on the need for a large scale
effort in this area?
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
questions to the Committee close of business on Wednesday, July 30,
2008--the date on which the hearing record will close. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
George Miller,
Chairman.
______
U.S. Congress,
Washington, DC, July 20, 2008.
Joel I. Klein, Chancellor,
New York City Department of Education, New York, NY.
Dear Mr. Klein: Thank you for testifying at the July 17, 2008
hearing of the Committee on Education and Labor on ``Mayor and
Superintendent Partnerships in Education: Closing the Achievement
Gap.''
Representative Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX), chairman of the Higher
Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness Subcommittee and
member of the Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education
Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in writing to the following
questions:
1. In the Department's report, there is no data provided from
Illinois or New York on the academic achievement of English language
learners in the content areas. How do you hold schools and the district
accountable for ensuring that English language learners achieve to the
same standards as all other students and for ensuring that they have
full access to the curriculum in a manner that is understandable to
them as required under the Supreme Court case Lau v. Nichols?
2. What graduation rates do your schools need to meet to make AYP
either by meeting the target or making ``safe harbor''?
3. I along with Rep. Scott, Rep. Grijalva, Rep. Davis, and many of
my colleagues on this committee introduced the Graduation Promise Act
to address the schools that are struggling the most to produce high
school graduates. What are your views on the need for a large scale
effort in this area?
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
questions to the Committee close of business on Wednesday, July 30,
2008--the date on which the hearing record will close. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
George Miller,
Chairman.
______
New York City Department of Education Response to July 23rd Questions
for the Record
question 1
In the Department's report, there is no data provided from Illinois
or New York on the academic achievement of English Language Learners in
the content areas. How do you hold schools and the district accountable
for ensuring that the English Language Learners achieve to the same
standards as all other students and for ensuring that they have full
access to the curriculum in a manner that is understandable to them as
required under the Supreme Court case Lau v. Nichols?
The Office of English Language Learners (ELLs) continues to
implement Children First reform initiatives that bolster a more
rigorous and responsive education for ELLs. By building on the momentum
of the Chancellor's seven ELL directives (2003), and refining
initiatives to help schools meet comprehensive accountability measures,
the Office is creating a stronger, more supportive staffing
infrastructure, rigorous professional development, coherent programs,
better materials and resources, and comprehensive parent outreach.
The Best Practices Initiative identifies schools that have shown
significant academic improvements for ELLs and shares with schools
citywide how these improvements were made. ELL specialists visit
schools that have demonstrated strong gains for ELLs in English
language arts, mathematics, science and/or social studies based on a
review of ELL performance data. In addition, practices and outcomes
from schools that have piloted academic interventions geared toward
improving ELLs academic achievement are studied and shared. Schools are
recruited and encouraged to share innovations and practices that have
produced reliable results through citywide conferences and/or
intervisitations. Descriptions of promising practices are provided on
the Web site for similarly situated schools interested in replicating
them.
The Bilingual Special Education Initiative is building a better
process to ensure the provision of equitable instructional outcomes for
ELLs with special needs. Through the initiative, the Office of ELLs
works closely with the Office of Special Education Initiatives to
support districts and schools with intervention strategies,
assessments, and instruction for ELLs with special needs. The
initiative contributed to a recent guide, ``Practitioner's Guide with
Primary Emphasis on Assessing Achievement as Part of an Evaluation for
Special Education,'' which, along with training modules, has been
disseminated citywide and provides the basis for wide-scale
professional development for clinicians.
The Classroom Resource Initiative works with all initiatives to
identify, develop, and disseminate the core curriculum instructional
materials and assessments necessary for schools to best support their
ELLs. In 2007-08, core instructional materials for ELLs have been
purchased centrally and delivered to schools. Periodic assessments for
ELLs have been implemented citywide. Also, specialized SIFE diagnostic
assessments are in the final stages of development.
The Dual Language Network Initiative provides planning,
implementation and global technology grants along with technical
assistance, resources and citywide networking events for schools
implementing dual language programs and those interested in the dual
language model. Each year, the initiative links schools (and other
interested parties) with local, state and nationwide researchers and
practitioners, providing high quality networking events, like the 2008
Dual Language Symposium and the Dual Language Leadership Institute. The
initiative continues to expand the number of programs in New York City
(currently 70), as well as language offerings-which now include Haitian
Creole, Russian, Korean, and French-adding to existing Spanish and
Chinese programs. Plans to offer more dual language programs that
extend into middle school and high school are being developed by
several schools in order to develop program sustainability. The
initiative partners with researchers from the Center for Applied
Linguistics and leaders in the dual language field-Dr. Sonia Soltero,
Dr. Margarita Calderon, Mimi Met, Dr. Sandra Mercuri, Lore Carrera-
Carillo, and Annette Smith--to help cohorts of schools create action
plans for stronger programs. These experts work closely with groups of
principals, administrators and teachers of prospective and actual
programs through a Dual Language Leadership Institute. Also, the
initiative identifies and coordinates intervisitations with exemplary
programs so that they can share their best practices with other
schools.
Language Allocation Policy (LAP) Initiative: Released in 2004, the
Language Allocation Policy provides a coherent policy for the
distribution of English and native language use in ELL instruction. A
LAP tool kit, created in 2004 and revised in 2007-08, provides
resources and structures to support school-based teams with planning
for ELL instruction. The LAP Initiative continues to update resources
and provide professional development on how to prepare a LAP that
guides the schools in creating programs for ELLs that are challenging
and rigorous. In addition, because the LAP is now a part of the
school's Comprehensive Education Plans, ELL specialists assist schools
in creating and revising LAPs on an annual basis to ensure that there
is instructional coherency within and across ELL programs.
The Literacy Initiative provides a variety of professional
development opportunities, resources and intervention programs for ELL
educators and staff with the goal of narrowing the achievement gap
between ELLs and English proficient students. Large conferences, like
Scaffolding the Academic Uses of English for ELLs, targeted workshops
on assessments and strategies, and the multi-leveled ELL Literacy
Leadership Institute (ELL-I) build school communities committed to ELL
literacy. The ELL-I works with administrators, teachers, and parent
coordinators so that school communities analyze their practices,
establish long term goals for literacy development for ELLs, and
develop action plans to achieve these goals. The institute relies on
the expertise of ELL literacy researchers and authors such as Diane
August (Center for Applied Linguistics), Margarita Calderon (Johns
Hopkins University), Pauline Gibbons and Jennifer Hammond (University
of Technology in Sydney, Australia), Myriam Met (University of
Maryland), Mary Capellini, David and Yvonne Freeman (The University of
Texas at Brownsville), and Katharine Davies Samway (San Jose
University), Lori Helman (University of Minnesota), Sandra Mercuri
(Fresno Pacific University). Launched in the 2006-07 school year, the
institute has already reached more than 350 school staff from 100
school teams and expects an additional 300 to participate during the
2008-09 school year. Also, ELL specialists are creating a K-12 English
as a Second Language scope and sequence document that is aligned to the
English Language Arts standards. This document will provide guidance
for educators who are strengthening their curriculum. Finally, the
initiative provides schools citywide with literacy and language support
interventions designed to differentiate literacy instruction for ELLs.
Web-based programs for elementary and middle school ELLs like Achieve
3000, Award Reading, and Imagine Learning English give students
additional demonstrations of classroom concepts using technology while
providing teachers with information on usage and pre- and post-
assessment results. Programs like Reading Instructional Goals for Older
Readers (RIGOR) focus on accelerating language, literacy and content
understanding for struggling learners.
The Math Initiative strives to raise the academic achievement of
ELLs by building a strong network among school-based math and ELL
leaders through professional development events, conferences and action
plans. The initiative provides schools with access to expert
mathematics researchers such as Mark Driscoll (Center for Leadership
and Learning Communities), Grace Kalemanik (Center for Leadership and
Learning Communities), Donna Gaarder (WestEd), Harold Asturias
(Lawrence Hall of Science) and Nicholas Branca (San Diego State
University). In 2007-08, the Math Initiative, in addition to enhancing
the content and methodology of middle school math educators, focuses on
the development of mathematics academic language in middle and high
school students. Through workshops, institutes, seminars and a citywide
conferences, the initiative provide educators with the theoretical
underpinnings and the practical strategies required to raise ELL
achievement in mathematics. The initiative continues to strengthen a
math leadership structure which uses QTEL math institute strategies to
create curriculum enhanced lessons. More than 4,200 professionals have
participated in mathematics initiative professional development since
2004.
The Middle School Initiative works closely with middle school staff
through targeted professional development institutes. The 2007-08 year
features ongoing institutes e.g., Looking at ELLs Work in the Middle
School, Middle School Mathematics and Academic Language Seminar,
Tertulia and Professional Learning for Spanish NLA Teachers,
Differentiated Instruction for Effective Teaching of Mathematics for
ELLs, Using Released Test Items to Improve ELL Mathematics Instruction,
and Scaffolding Academic Uses of English in Middle School ELA for ELLs.
Also, all Office of ELLs-sponsored conferences on world and dual
language programs, strengthening academic language, mathematics,
science, best practices and ELL subpopulations (e.g., SIFE, LTEs)
provide sessions and panel discussions specifically for middle school
staff featuring experts and middle school practitioners. Finally, the
initiative provides coaching to more than thirty high-needs middle
schools as well as one-on-one technical assistance from ELL specialists
through the Adopt-a-Middle-School program.
The Native Language Arts (NLA) Initiative provides bilingual
administrators and educators with critical native language classroom
resources and professional development institutes necessary to provide
native language learning according to state standards. Native language
classroom libraries are strengthening classroom instruction in
bilingual classrooms citywide. Since 2003, $2.27 million dollars have
been spent on Spanish classroom libraries, $1.21 million on Asian
Language libraries (including Bengali, Chinese, Korean, and Russian),
and $72,000 on Haitian Creole classroom libraries. Schools have
implemented academic interventions with supports in Spanish (Achieve,
Imagine Learning, Destination Math, RIGOR), Mandarin (Imagine
Learning), Vietnamese (Imagine Learning), Haitian Creole (Imagine
Learning), Japanese (Imagine Learning), Korean (Imagine Learning),
Portuguese (Imagine Learning), and French (Imagine Learning). This
year, several NLA committees are creating resources for NLA teachers,
e.g., a six level Scope and Sequence and Curriculum for High School
Spanish NLA to strengthen programs citywide so that more students reach
proficiency at the AP level. In 2007-08, special offerings for NLA
educators included institutes on Spanish, literacy and science. A
series of Spanish NLA professional development provides an opportunity
for teachers to strengthen their language and literature content, learn
new strategies to add to their repertoire, and visit the rich and
varied Spanish cultural resources available to our students.
The Parent Outreach Initiative. Parents of ELLs especially should
feel welcome in NYC schools and be fully informed of the instructional
program options available to their children. More than 3,500 parents
participate each year in activities sponsored by the ELL Parent
Outreach Initiative, in collaboration with other DOE offices (e.g.,
Office of Parent Engagement, Translation and Interpretation Unit).
Annual citywide conferences provide parents of ELLs with an opportunity
to see key officials and policymakers; attend informational workshops;
meet school and community-based organization; and peruse educational
materials from publishers that showcase learning materials for ELLs in
a variety of native languages. The initiative also provides specialized
training focused on literacy and math so that parents can participate
in the academic lives of their children (e.g., The Math and Parents in
Partnership Program is in its third year). The initiative conducts
outreach and training sessions for school staff and community groups in
order to increase the capacity and awareness of those who work with ELL
parents. Finally, the initiative develops school-based resources to
assist staff who work with ELL parents (see ELL Parent Information
Case).
Quality Teaching for English Learners (QTEL) Professional
Development Institutes: Educational consultants at WestEd, in
collaboration with Office of ELLs staff, provide a host of multi-day
professional development opportunities for educators (bilingual and
monolingual) and region and school-based leaders. The institutes have
reached almost 500 educators in 2007-08 and thousands of educators
citywide since 2003.
Beginning ESL is for secondary ESL teachers who work with
beginning ESL students. This institute promotes communicative
competence in English for secondary students by presenting activities
that stimulate students' conversational situations, enhancing their
capacity to produce well-defined spoken and written text.
``Building the Base I'' gives participants a firm grasp of
QTEL strategies-mainly effective scaffolding strategies to facilitate
the linguistic transition of ELLs. It provides a solid base for any
educator called to teach ELLs or foreign language students, especially
those with ELLs in their general education classrooms.
English Language Arts QTEL for secondary school English
Language Arts teachers develops participants' understanding of how to
scaffold instruction for ELLs with grade-appropriate rigorous texts
within a variety of genres. The institute provides the theoretical
understanding and corresponding strategies so that educators can
effectively engage ELLs in acquiring the standards-based content and
academic language needed to succeed in secondary school.
Math QTEL pivots around instructional scaffolding-
providing support structures-to help ELLs transition to English while
strengthening academic language in mathematics. It develops
participants' theoretical understanding and practical knowledge of
effective practices for teaching students who are learning English and
math content simultaneously. The institute includes practical lesson
planning and building thematic units, while also arming teachers with
the attitudes, knowledge, and dispositions to work effectively with
adolescent language learners.
Science QTEL for secondary education science teachers
develops participants' theoretical understanding and practical
knowledge of effective instructional practices for teaching students
who are learning English and science content simultaneously. This
institute is for science teachers who need strategies to raise the
academic performance of ELLs in their classrooms.
Social Studies QTEL for high school social studies
teachers develops participants' expertise in teaching English learners
rigorous content and uses of academic English to succeed in US History
and Government courses. The institute provides teachers with a firm
foundation of the theoretical understanding and practical applications
necessary for scaffolding standards-based, grade-appropriate content.
Spanish QTEL helps bilingual, dual language and foreign
language educators develop tools and processes for teaching academic
Spanish to native Spanish-speaking students.
The Science Initiative provides staff development to raise the
academic achievement of ELLs in science. Working closely with West Ed,
the initiative provides institutes that strengthen content, provide
strategies for ELLs in science, and connect teachers with the wealth of
science institutions around the city that are available to students.
Workshops and institutes establish school-level partnerships
encouraging ESL and science teachers to participate as teams.
The Secondary Schools Initiative ensures that middle and high
schools, both large and small, receive support for a quality education
that moves ELLs towards achieving post-secondary success. Sustained
professional development builds academic literacy and language in
content area subjects such as mathematics, social studies, English, and
science. Secondary schools are provided with exemplars of a standards-
based curriculum, instructional materials provided in home languages
and accessible English, and high quality teachers with expertise in
English language development. Under the initiative, groups of educators
are developing scope and sequence documents for ESL, foreign language,
and native language arts for grades 6-12. These will be accompanied by
curriculum maps and units of study. Also, the initiative developed a
summary of research and promising practices, Designing Better High
Schools for ELLs, to help high schools structure their ELL programs to
be more flexible and responsive to the needs of adolescent ELLs.
The Small Schools Initiative provides sustained support to school
leaders and their teams as they develop a quality program for ELLs. ELL
specialists work with small school communities to identify common areas
of need. A comprehensive technical assistance support program helps
schools review and conduct needs assessment surveys to identify and
address high-needs areas for ELLs small schools. The initiative also
provide professional development, such as a four-day institute for
teachers, coordinators and administrators on programming and scheduling
rigorous instructional programs aligned to CR Part 154 mandates. A tool
kit is being developed targeting the needs of small schools. In
collaboration with of the Office of Portfolio Development, new small
schools opening in the 2008-09 school year will receive summer
professional development and technical assistance.
The Social Studies Initiative strives to raise ELL academic
achievement through project-based learning and an English as a Second
Language (ESL)/Literacy approach. The Global History and Geography
Enrichment Program is designed for ESL/bilingual teachers to support
ninth and tenth graders at beginning and intermediate literacy levels
with Regents requirements. Teams of ELL specialists, teachers, social
studies content experts and literacy consultants have developed a
Global History & Geography Curriculum Guide for ELLs. This curriculum
guide, which can be used as a supplement to the ninth grade Global
Studies Core Curriculum, provides exemplars that effectively integrate
specific reading and writing strategies as well as scaffolds to teach
Global Studies. In 2007-08, the guide, consisting of lessons and
student journals, was piloted in classroom during and after school. In
some settings, the content area specialist co-taught with the ESL
specialist to effectively support students with content area knowledge
as well as academic language. Professional development includes
institutes on using the guide along with content libraries and
instructional materials. Additional professional development will be
provided in the 2008-09 school year for schools that opt to use the
guide
Students with Interrupted Formal Education (SIFE) Grants Project
provides funding, professional development and technical assistance so
that schools create instructional models to accelerate language and
academic learning for SIFE. The initiative has expanded support to
include long-term ELLs, provided more tailored professional development
and instructional service options for 47 grant recipients, and refined
its structure to provide funding and technical assistance to
demonstration sites within the school system. The initiative also
continues to work with the CUNY Graduate Center on ongoing research and
diagnostic assessments as well as with state policymakers on SIFE
identification. A diagnostic assessment to identify Spanish and English
speaking SIFE will be available beginning September 2008.
The World Languages Initiative prepares City students to be well-
equipped with cultural and foreign language skills required for our
global society. The initiative provides a citywide conference that
provides educators with school planning information and classroom
strategies for developing effective world language programs. Targeted
institutes focus on helping educators develop curriculum. Additionally,
ELL specialists and leaders from the field are working together to
develop a scope and sequence for Spanish and Chinese. The scope and
sequence (grades K-12) documents will guide world language instruction
that is aligned to national and State standards. Also, a learning
community of teachers, in collaboration with The World Language
Department of Queens College, work together to write curriculum units
to foster students' awareness of world cultures and strengthen
linguistic skills.
The Writing Initiative looks at writing as an integral part of the
success of each ELL in every subject. This initiative provides one- and
two-day professional development sessions that look at the various
genres in which ELLs are required to perform, such as expository (e.g.
reports and essays) writing. Professional development sessions give
participants practical and research-based strategies that build ELLs'
writing skills, allowing students to express their opinions, write
about a wide array of subjects, and convey meaning accurately within
content-areas.
question 2
What graduation rates do your schools need to meet to make AYP
either by meeting the target or making ``safe harbor''?
For NCLB/state accountability, the graduation rate cohort will be
used to determine if the district or school meets the graduation-rate
requirements. The state standard for graduation rate is 55%. The
graduation-rate cohort consists of all students, regardless of their
current grade status, who were enrolled in the school on October 6,
2005 (BEDS day) and met one of the following conditions: first entered
grade 9 (anywhere) during the 2002-03 school year (July 1, 2002 through
June 30, 2003); or in the case of ungraded students with disabilities,
reached their seventeenth birthday during the 2002-03 school year. For
a school to meet AYP in ELA and/or math via safe harbor at the
secondary level, it must make the State Standard or its Progress Target
for graduation rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note. Progress Targets are determined at the secondary level for
groups that do not meet the State Standard. To make AYP for graduation
rate, the ``All Students'' group must meet the State Standard or its
Progress Target.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
question 3
I along with Rep. Scott, Rep. Grijalva, Rep. Davis, and many of my
colleagues on this committee introduced the Graduation Promise Act to
address the schools that are struggling the most to produce high school
graduates. What are your views on the need for a large scale effort in
this area?
The New York City Department of Education strongly supports the
need for a large scale effort to address schools that are struggling
the most to produce high school graduates. In particular, we support
the Graduation Promise Act's provisions to authorize $2.5 billion in
new funding to:
Create a federal-state-local secondary school reform
partnership focused on transforming the nation's lowest performing high
schools;
Build capacity for high school improvement and provide
resources to ensure high school educators and students facing the
highest challenges receive the support they need to succeed;
Strengthen state systems to identify, differentiate among,
and target the level of reform and resources necessary to improve low
performing high schools and ensure transparency and accountability for
that process;
Advance the research and development needed to ensure a
robust supply of highly effective secondary school models for those
most at risk of being left behind, and identify the most effective
reforms; and
Support states to align their policies and systems to meet
the goal of college and career-ready graduation for all students.
In offering this support, it is necessary to put school turnaround
and replacement efforts into the context of overall secondary school
reform in New York City and discuss how these efforts move us toward
high school diplomas that signify college- and work-readiness for the
21st century.
Six years ago, Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein created
Children First, a bold agenda to reform New York City's public
schools--the nation's largest school system. Children First directly
addresses the greatest challenge and opportunity in public education
today: preparing our students to succeed, to become thoughtful and
productive citizens, and to contribute to the city's vibrancy and
competitive advantage. Under Children First, the overarching goal of
the New York City Department of Education (DOE) is to develop, support,
and sustain 1,450+ great schools, providing every student in the city
access to a high quality education and the chance to succeed. The DOE
is not building a great school system, rather a system of great
schools.
Significant progress has been made under Mayor Bloomberg and
Chancellor Klein. Launched in 2003, Children First has stabilized a
formerly unbalanced system, eliminated layers of bureaucracy, pushed
more than $350 million from central and regional administration into
the schools, and set new and rigorous academic standards supported by
strong curricula. Today, the system is stronger and tangible progress
has been made--the four-year high school graduation rate has reached
60%, the highest level since the city began calculating the rate in
1986
The NYC DOE's new eighth grade promotion standards hold students to
higher expectations and will ensure that students who are promoted out
of middle school are effectively prepared for the rigors of high
school-level work. Once students successfully meet this threshold, they
are provided with a portfolio of high quality secondary school options
that put them on a path to realize their educational and life goals.
Building a portfolio of high-quality education options that meet
the diverse needs of New York City's 1.1 million students and their
families has been a centerpiece of the reforms. To accomplish this,
internal DOE stakeholders--the Chancellor's Office, the Office of
Portfolio Development, the Office of Multiple Pathways to Graduation,
the Division of Teaching & Learning--have collaborated with external
support partners to develop a range of meaningful programs designed to
target high-need student populations, organized around two
complementary sets of strategies aimed at improving the 4-year and 6-
year graduation rates:
1. Preventative Strategies that focus on providing students with
rigorous, personalized, and engaging academic options that would
prevent them from falling off-track and becoming overage-under credited
(OA-UC). The Gates Foundation has been a strong partner in this work,
which includes:
New small schools that offer high quality educational
options to all students based on the principles of academic rigor,
personalization, and community-based partnerships; to date, the DOE has
created over 230 new schools.
Charter Schools are independent public schools, governed
by their own not-for-profit boards of trustees, which operate on the
terms of five-year performance contracts known as charters. All
students eligible for admission to a traditional public school can
apply to a charter school. Students are admitted through a lottery, but
charter schools do give preference to siblings of students already
enrolled in the school and students living in the charter school's
district.
Small learning communities (SLCs)--small academic
communities of approximately 400 students within larger comprehensive
middle and high schools. Each SLC has a dedicated group of
administrators and staff focused on providing students with a
challenging curriculum and helping them graduate on time and prepared
for college or the workplace.
Career and technical education (CTE)--Rigorous career and
technical education options attract students by enhancing the range of
pathways and options that lead directly into meaningful post-secondary
educational and/or workforce opportunities for our students. High
quality CTE programs directly align to the needs and demands of
industry and equip students with the relevant skills and competencies
to successfully compete in the 21st century economy.
2. Recuperative Strategies that focus on improving academic
outcomes for students who have already become OA-UC by putting them
back on-track and creating multiple pathways to graduation. Multiple
pathway options for over-age under-credited students include:
Transfer High Schools are small, academically rigorous
high schools designed to reengage students who have dropped out or who
have fallen behind and now have fewer credits than they should for
their age (these students are called ``over-age and under-credited'').
These schools provide a personalized learning environment and
connections to career and college opportunities. Students graduate with
a high school diploma from their transfer high school. Each transfer
school determines admissions criteria individually. Guidance counselors
at students' original high schools must contact each prospective school
directly to set up an interview for admission or to learn more about
the school.
Young Adult Borough Centers are evening academic programs
designed to meet the needs of high school students who might be
considering dropping out because they are behind academically or
because they have adult responsibilities that make attending school in
the daytime difficult. Eligible students are at least 17.5 years old,
have been in school for four or more years, and have 17 or more
credits. Students graduate with a diploma from their home school after
they have earned all of their credits and passed all of the required
exams while attending a YABC.
Learning to Work Programs offer in-depth job readiness and
career exploration opportunities designed to enhance the academic
components of select Young Adult Borough Centers, Transfer Schools, and
GED programs. The goals of Learning to Work are to assist students in
overcoming some of the obstacles that impede their progress toward a
high school diploma and lead them toward rewarding post-secondary
employment and educational experiences. Learning to Work offers
academic support, career and education exploration, work preparation,
skills development, and internships.
GED Programs with Learning to Work are available for
students who wish to prepare for the General Education Development
(GED) exam. Students who receive a passing score on the GED exam earn a
High School Equivalency Diploma. We have developed new full and part-
time GED programs that are blended with the Learning to Work program.
These programs prepare students for the GED and help them develop
connections to meaningful post-secondary opportunities.
Actively managing this portfolio of school options is a critical
lever in sustaining and expanding opportunities for all students to
reach graduation. Rather than prescribing interventions, federal and
state efforts should build capacity within local districts to
continually optimize their portfolio of school options, replacing poor
performing schools, improving underperforming school and documenting
effective practices of high performing schools.
An actively managed portfolio of schools, coupled with empowered
leadership and strong accountability are key levers to ensure that all
of our students are prepared for postsecondary success. The next
generation of accountability must increase the emphasis on graduation
rates and postsecondary readiness, which are often overlooked in the
current focus on improving student test scores. In order to make these
factors an integral part of the next wave of accountability, fewer,
higher, and clearer standards should be defined at federal and state
level, with then maximum discretion for district innovation to achieve
results, including increased funding with fewer strings attached.
______
U.S. Congress,
Washington, DC, July 24, 2008.
Arne Duncan, Chief Executive Officer,
Chicago Public Schools, Chicago, IL.
Dear Mr. Duncan: Thank you for testifying at the July 17, 2008
hearing of the Committee on Education and Labor on ``Mayor and
Superintendent Partnerships in Education: Closing the Achievement
Gap.''
Representative Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX), chairman of the Higher
Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness Subcommittee and
member of the Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education
Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in writing to the following
questions:
1. In the Department's report, there is no data provided from
Illinois or New York on the academic achievement of English language
learners in the content areas. How do you hold schools and the district
accountable for ensuring that English language learners achieve to the
same standards as all other students and for ensuring that they have
full access to the curriculum in a manner that is understandable to
them as required under the Supreme Court case Lau v. Nichols?
2. What graduation rates do your schools need to meet to make AYP
either by meeting the target or making ``safe harbor''?
3. I along with Rep. Scott, Rep. Grijalva, Rep. Davis, and many of
my colleagues on this committee introduced the Graduation Promise Act
to address the schools that are struggling the most to produce high
school graduates. What are your views on the need for a large scale
effort in this area?
Representative Danny K. Davis (D-IL), member of the Higher
Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness Subcommittee and
member of the Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education
Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in writing to the following
questions:
1. The Chicago bonus pay program is known for having worked closely
with teachers and teachers' unions to develop it. Can you give more
detail on what this united effort looks like and how it has helped the
program?
2. Can you discuss how the stakeholders established the formula for
the bonus pay, such as what variables are considered and what
percentage each variable carries?
3. In your testimony, you mentioned the teacher pipeline efforts.
Could you explain these efforts in greater detail?
4. Could you share with the Committee more details about how
Chicago encourages high quality teachers to teach in the lowest
performing schools?
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
questions to the Committee close of business on Wednesday, July 30,
2008--the date on which the hearing record will close. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
George Miller,
Chairman.
______
Chicago Public Schools,
S. Clark St., 5th Floor,
Chicago, IL, July 30, 2008.
Hon. George Miller, Chairman,
Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Miller: Representative Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX), chairman of
the Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness
Subcommittee and member of the Early Childhood, Elementary and
Secondary Education Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in writing
to the following questions:
1. In the Department's report, there is no data provided from
Illinois or New York on the academic achievement of English language
learners in the content areas. How do you hold schools and the district
accountable for ensuring that English language learners achieve to the
same standards as all other students and for ensuring that they have
full access to the curriculum in a manner that is understandable to
them as required under the Supreme Court case Lau v. Nichols?
ELLs are tested in Reading and Math in grades 3-8, and Science in
grades 4 & 7 on the state assessment. ELLs participate in the bilingual
program that provides them instruction (to the same standards) in the
native language and English as a Second Language (ESL). Students are
assessed on their English proficiency annually and take classes in
their native language and English, depending on their English
proficiency. Students are allowed to participate in the bilingual
program for three years or longer, if necessary, until they have
demonstrated English proficiency on the state assessment.
2. What graduation rates do your schools need to meet to make AYP
either by meeting the target or making ``safe harbor''?
The high school graduation rate must be 75% in school year 07-08 to
make AYP. There is no safe harbor for graduation rate.
3. I along with Rep. Scott, Rep. Grijalva, Rep. Davis, and many of
my colleagues on this committee introduced the Graduation Promise Act
to address the schools that are struggling the most to produce high
school graduates. What are your views on the need for a large scale
effort in this area?
It is clear that large-scale federal reform is necessary to address
the dismally high dropout rates that our highest-need schools are
facing. In Chicago alone, nearly 42% of our students drop out of high
school without attaining a diploma and there are over 20 comprehensive
high schools with drop out rates higher than 50%. Despite these
startling figures, there is hope. We know that by better targeting our
most needy students through engaging, rigorous and relevant curriculum,
social and emotional supports, and personalized learning environments
with caring adults we can reach those who are most at-risk and steer
them on a path toward success. Achieving these things will require
providing high-quality options for all students, developing capacity of
teachers and leaders within secondary schools, and targeting resources
towards those schools and students that have the highest need.
Representative Danny K. Davis (D-IL), member of the Higher
Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness Subcommittee and
member of the Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education
Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in writing to the following
questions:
1. The Chicago bonus pay program is known for having worked closely
with teachers and teachers' unions to develop it. Can you give more
detail on what this united effort looks like and how it has helped the
program?
In 2006, CPS convened a team of educators and community
stakeholders, including CTU representatives, CPAA representatives,
teachers (DRIVE), funders/foundations, and other central office
administrators in researching and developing the TIF grant proposal.
After receiving the TIF grant award in November 2006, the REAL Program
(now called Chicago TAP) established a planning committee to continue
the planning and implementation activities. The planning committee
included many of the same people from the original grant committee.
Concurrently, CPS and CTU were negotiating a Memorandum of
Understanding regarding the REAL Program pilot with the assistance of
Franczek and Sullivan. During the negotiations, we also received
guidance and support from national AFT personnel, Louise Sundan
(Minnesota TAP) and Rob Weil, National AFT Educational Issues. As a
result of the agreement, we established a Joint Council, chaired by
Arne Duncan and Marilyn Stewart, consisting of 5 members selected by
CPS and 5 members selected by CTU to continue monitoring and guiding
the direction of the program's implementation. The Joint Council
currently consists of three (3) teachers and one (1) principal in
Chicago TAP schools, six (6) CPS or CTU administrators, and the
president of The Chicago Public Education Fund. This group meets twice
per month and has shown great commitment and dedication to making sure
that this program is implemented with fidelity and also transparency.
2. Can you discuss how the stakeholders established the formula for
the bonus pay, such as what variables are considered and what
percentage each variable carries?
Based on the nationally recognized TAP model, the performance bonus
awards are comprised of two components:
Teachers Skills, Knowledge and Responsibilities (SKR) as
measured by teachers' observations using the TAP Instructional Rubric
and an end-of-year Responsibilities Survey
Student Achievement gains as measured by Value Added
(School wide Gains and Classroom-level Gains)
In Year 1 of implementation for each Cohort, the performance bonus
award is weighted 25% based on Teachers' SKR score, and 75% based on
School-wide Student achievement gains. Below, the percentages change
over time and classroom level student achievement gains are phased in
as the implementation progresses.
The table below illustrates the percentages of each variable.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2* Year 3 Year 4
------------------------------------------------------------------
Teachers' SKR (4-6 Observations and 40% (Average 40% (Average 40% (Average $1,600
Responsibilities Survey)........................ $1,600) $1,600)
School-wide gains................................ 50% (Maximum 40% (Maximum 40% (Maximum $1,200
$2,000) $1,600)
Classroom level gains............................ 10% (Maximum $400)
20% (Maximum $800) 30% (Maximum $1,200
------------------------------------------------------------------
For teachers in non-tested subjects or grades (Kindergarten, 1st
grade, Art, PE, etc.), the performance bonus award is weighted 40%
based on Teachers' SKR score and 60% based on School-wide Student
Achievement Gains.
3. In your testimony, you mentioned the teacher pipeline efforts.
Could you explain these efforts in greater detail?
teacher pipeline programs
Like many public school districts across the nation, the Chicago
Public Schools (CPS) continues to experience a growing need for high-
quality teachers who are committed to raising academic achievement in
the most challenged schools. One avenue toward meeting this demand is
through the Teacher Pipeline Programs which are designed to attract
educators and professionals into CPS classrooms.
The Teacher Pipeline Programs aligns its purpose with the Human
Capital Initiative to ensure that outstanding leaders are staffed into
CPS classrooms. The second purpose is to identify and aggressively
recruit high quality teachers within 6 to 18 months from their
certification especially in those subject areas of high need.
Therefore, CPS will hold a pipeline of quality teachers to address
teacher vacancies for two academic years. Listed below are overviews
and outcomes for the three programs: Teaching Residency & Internship
Program (TRIP), Student Teaching Program, and Alternative Certification
Program.
i. teaching residency & internship programs
Overview: The CPS Teaching Residency and Internship Programs are
designed to provide talented education majors with an opportunity to
experience living and teaching in the city of Chicago with hopes they
return to the district as new hires upon graduation and certification.
This highly selective program attracts the best teachers nationally and
is a model for other programs. Pre-service teachers teach under the
guidance of veteran CPS and Nationally Board Certified Teachers. These
teachers are identified 12 to 18 months from their certification.
Outcomes
Over 825 online applications were received, representing
47 universities
Applications received represented 24 states including:
Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin,
Pennsylvania, California, Oregon, Arizona, North Dakota, Georgia,
Louisiana, Florida, New York and Maine.
University representation include: University of IL
Urbana, University of Michigan, DePaul University, Illinois State
University, Michigan State University, University of Wisconsin-Madison,
Clark-Atlanta University, Miami University of Ohio, University of
Missouri in Columbia, Ohio University, Loyola University of Chicago,
Western Illinois University, etc.
70 Interns participated in 2006 and 19 Interns
participated in 2007
93 Teaching Residents participated in 2006 and 86 Teaching
Residents participated in 2007
Comment: The program retired in 2007 and is currently being
restructured for summer 2009 to increase capacity and ensure the
program is aligned with other district initiatives.
ii. student-teaching program
Overview: This program assists outstanding pre-service teachers by
offering a unique urban teaching experience, support and guidance
through the final phases of the traditional teacher certification
program. Upon successful completion of their CPS student teaching
experience, the Student Teaching Program aggressively seeks to retain
and hire those effective student teachers. CPS student teachers are
highly recommended teacher candidates, as they have already
demonstrated their commitment and passion to CPS. These teachers are
identified 6 to 12 months from their certification.
Recently, the Student Teaching Program piloted the Student Teaching
Application Process where individuals must be selected to conduct their
student teaching work in the district. This will become a standard
practice within the coming year.
ii. alternative certification programs
Overview: These programs are designed to attract outstanding
leaders to become teachers in CPS and to significantly impact the
academic achievement of our city's children. Individuals enrolled in
these highly-selective programs provide classroom learning with the
content knowledge based on academic and professional experiences. Their
backgrounds lend themselves to teaching high-need subject areas as
math, science, world languages in Spanish and Chinese, bilingual
elementary education, and special elementary education. These teachers
are identified 6-8 months from their certification.
Outcomes
The Chicago Teaching Fellows Program experienced another successful
recruitment season for the 2007-2008 academic year. Listed below are
the following outcomes:
1. Recruitment data for 2007-2008 Academic Year:
5,592 logins
2,075 applications submitted
1,688 Eligible Candidates
1,026 Scheduled Interviews
122 Have successfully completed the Summer Institute and
are eligible to teach in the fall as Teacher of Record.
2. Demographics
NOTE: This is self-reporting information. 58.19% of the Fellows
identified themselves as non-minority and the remaining 41.80% as
minority. (51/122)
3. Education
4. Could you share with the Committee more details about how
Chicago encourages high quality teachers to teach in the lowest
performing schools?
Overview: The Department of Human Resources--Recruitment &
Workforce Planning partnered with The New Teacher Project to recruit
and identify high quality teachers for the reconstituted schools known
as the Model Hiring Initiatives (MHI) for Turnaround Schools.
The expected outcome for this initiative is to ensure vacancies are
staffed by a highly qualified and effective teacher by the start of the
school year. Also, this initiatives will provide: (1) a branded
marketing campaign (2) hiring strategies focused on building rigorous
teacher selection models especially in high need subject areas such as
math, science, physical education and other subject areas when needed
(3) workshops for schools to learn about effective hiring practices,
projecting vacancies, marketing, and creating interview protocols at
the school and (4) focused support for principals to ensure teacher
vacancies are filled with quality educators by the start of the new
school year.
For the 2008-2009 school year, CPS will open six reconstituted
(turnaround) schools. Three schools will be managed by the Chief
Education Office and three will be managed by the Academy of Urban
School Leadership.
Chief Education Office
Harper High School
Nicolas Copernicus Elementary School
Robert Fulton Elementary School
Academy of Urban School Leadership
Orr Academy High School
Howe School of Excellence
Morton School of Excellence
The branded marketing campaign for the Turnaround Schools is:
Teach Chicago Turnarounds--Change Schools, Change Lives
http://www.teachchicagoturnarounds.org/
Approximately 275 educators will be hired to change the school
climate by teaching and aggressively setting high expectations for
positive learning and success. As of July 28, 2008--about 88% of
qualified teachers have been identified to teach in the Elementary and
High School Turnaround Schools.
Listed below are indicators of how the recruitment efforts have
progressed.
2,172 individuals have submitted resumes
After the initial screening, 404 candidates have been
identified as qualified teachers
62% have advanced degrees
30% have graduated from a school considered a ``Top 50
School of Education'' by U.S. News & World Reports
3% are Nationally Board Certified Teachers
Over 9,500 hits have been recorded on the Teach Chicago
Turnarounds website across 37 countries/territories as of July 28,
2008.
turnaround school teacher competencies
The collaborative efforts among the Chicago Public Education Fund,
The New Teacher Project, Public Impact, CPS Department of Human
Resources--Recruitment & Workforce Planning and the Office of School
Turnaround resulted in a systematic approach to identifying principals
specifically for Turnaround Schools. The outcome led to identifying a
set of principal competencies needed to open and operate a
reconstituted school. Those set of principal competencies became the
foundation to recruit and select teachers who held the same
dispositions and instructional effectiveness.
The competencies for Turnaround School Teachers are the following:
I. Driving for Results Cluster--Relentless focus on learning
results.
Achievement: The drive and actions to set challenging
goals and reach a high standard of performance despite barriers.
Initiative and Persistence: The drive and actions to do
more than is expected or required in order to accomplish a challenging
task.
Monitoring and Directive: The ability to set clear
expectations and to hold others accountable for performance.
Planning Ahead: A bias towards planning to derive future
benefits or to avoid problems.
II. Influencing for Results Cluster--These enable working through
and with others.
Impact and Influence: Acting with the purpose of affecting
the perceptions, thinking and actions of others.
Interpersonal Understanding: Understanding and
interpreting others' concerns, motives, feelings and behaviors.
Teamwork: The ability and actions needed to work with
others to achieve shared goals.
III. Problem Solving Cluster--These enable solving and simplifying
complex problems.
Analytical Thinking: The ability to break things down in a
logical way and to recognize cause and effect.
Conceptual Thinking: The ability to see patters and links
among seemingly unrelated things.
IV. Personal Effectiveness Cluster--These enable success in a
highly challenging situation.
Self-Control: Acting to keep one's emotions under control,
especially when provoked.
Self-Confidence: A personal belief in one's ability to
accomplish tasks and the actions that reflect that belief.
Flexibility: The ability to adapt one's approach to the
requirements of a situation and to change tactics.
Belief in Learning Potential: A belief that all students,
regardless of circumstances, can learn at levels higher than the
current achievement indicates.
Each candidate was interviewed through a rigorous selection model.
The manner in which we did this was by developing and utilizing
selection tools to determine the appropriate teachers for the
reconstituted schools.
Turnaround School Principals are the ultimate hiring authority for
their respective schools. A comprehensive training module was provided
for the six Turnaround School Principals to integrate and implement the
Teacher Turnaround School Competencies. Five sessions were delivered by
The New Teacher Project and the Department of Human Resources provided
feedback on how to integrate theory with practices and CPS policies. As
stated previously, the schools have identified 88% of the instructional
staff based on these Teacher Turnaround School Competencies.
Sincerely,
Arne Duncan,
Chief Executive Officer.
FY2008 Recruitment & Workforce Planning Initiatives
overview
The Chicago Public Schools (CPS) recruitment strategy is to attract
and focus on quality candidates versus the quantity of candidates. This
is the district's guiding principle in identifying individuals who hold
the highest potential for success in teaching children and leading
school reform in a large urban setting.
The Department of Human Resources--Office of Recruitment and
Workforce Planning developed various teacher pipeline programs and
recruitment enhancement strategies to ensure challenged schools had
early and direct access to quality teacher candidates who are committed
to delivering effective instruction.
Listed below are various initiatives that are based on these
principles:
I. Teacher Pipeline Programs
Alternative Certification Program
Student Teaching Program
Teaching Residency & Internship Program
II. Recruitment Enhancement Strategies
Model Hiring Initiative--Turnaround Schools
Model Hiring Initiative--Area 14
III. Recruitment Enhancement Strategies
Strategic Human Resources--Principal Workshops
Fellowship in Urban School Leadership
IV. University Outreach
Dean's Summit
i. teacher pipeline programs
Like many public school districts across the nation, the Chicago
Public Schools (CPS) continues to experience a growing need for high-
quality teachers who are committed to raising academic achievement in
the most challenged schools. One avenue toward meeting this demand is
through the Teacher Pipeline Programs which are designed to attract
educators and professionals into CPS classrooms.
The Teacher Pipeline Programs aligns its purpose with the Human
Capital Initiative to ensure that outstanding leaders are staffed into
CPS classrooms. The second purpose is to identify and aggressively
recruit high quality teachers within 6 to 18 months from their
certification especially in those subject areas of high need.
Therefore, CPS will hold a pipeline of quality teachers to address
teacher vacancies for two academic years. Listed below are overviews
and outcomes for the three programs: Teaching Residency & Internship
Program (TRIP), Student Teaching Program, and Alternative Certification
Program.
A.) Teaching residency & internship programs
Overview: The CPS Teaching Residency and Internship Programs are
designed to provide talented education majors with an opportunity to
experience living and teaching in the city of Chicago with hopes they
return to the district as new hires upon graduation and certification.
This highly selective program attracts the best teachers nationally and
is a model for other programs. Pre-service teachers teach under the
guidance of veteran CPS and Nationally Board Certified Teachers. These
teachers are identified 12 to 18 months from their certification.
Outcomes
Over 825 online applications were received, representing
47 universities
Applications received represented 24 states including:
Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin,
Pennsylvania, California, Oregon, Arizona, North Dakota, Georgia,
Louisiana, Florida, New York and Maine.
University representation include: University of IL
Urbana, University of Michigan, DePaul University, Illinois State
University, Michigan State University, University of Wisconsin-Madison,
Clark-Atlanta University, Miami University of Ohio, University of
Missouri in Columbia, Ohio University, Loyola University of Chicago,
Western Illinois University, etc.
70 Interns participated in 2006 and 19 Interns
participated in 2007
93 Teaching Residents participated in 2006 and 86 Teaching
Residents participated in 2007
Comment: The program retired in 2007 and is currently being
restructured for summer 2009 to increase capacity and ensure the
program is aligned with other district initiatives.
B.) Student-teaching program
Overview: This program assists outstanding pre-service teachers by
offering a unique urban teaching experience, support and guidance
through the final phases of the traditional teacher certification
program. Upon successful completion of their CPS student teaching
experience, the Student Teaching Program aggressively seeks to retain
and hire those effective student teachers. CPS student teachers are
highly recommended teacher candidates, as they have already
demonstrated their commitment and passion to CPS. These teachers are
identified 6 to 12 months from their certification.
Recently, the Student Teaching Program piloted the Student Teaching
Application Process where individuals must be selected to conduct their
student teaching work in the district. This will become a standard
practice within the coming year.
C.) Alternative certification programs
Overview: These programs are designed to attract outstanding
leaders to become teachers in CPS and to significantly impact the
academic achievement of our city's children. Individuals enrolled in
these highly-selective programs provide classroom learning with the
content knowledge based on academic and professional experiences. Their
backgrounds lend themselves to teaching high-need subject areas as
math, science, world languages in Spanish and Chinese, bilingual
elementary education, and special elementary education. These teachers
are identified 6-8 months from their certification.
Outcomes: The Chicago Teaching Fellows Program experienced another
successful recruitment season for the 2007-2008 academic year. Listed
below are the following outcomes:
A.) Recruitment data for 2007-2008 Academic Year:
5,592 logins
2,075 applications submitted
1,688 Eligible Candidates
1,026 Scheduled Interviews
122 Have successfully completed the Summer Institute and
are eligible to teach in the fall as Teacher of Record.
ii. recruitment enhancement programs
Overview: In partnership with The New Teacher Project, the Office
of Recruitment & Workforce Planning developed teacher recruitment
supports for specific schools called Model Hiring Initiatives (MHI) for
Turnaround Schools and Area 14. The majority of work is completed
during the summer months in anticipation for the first day of school.
The expected outcome for both initiatives is to ensure vacancies
are staffed by a highly qualified and effective teacher by the start of
the school year. Also, both initiatives will provide: (1) a branded
marketing campaign (2) hiring strategies focused on building rigorous
teacher selection models especially in high need subject areas such as
math, science, physical education and other subject areas when needed
(3) workshops for schools to learn about effective hiring practices,
projecting vacancies, marketing, and creating interview protocols at
the school and (4) focused support for principals to ensure teacher
vacancies are filled with quality educators by the start of the new
school year.
A.) Model hiring initiative--turnaround schools
For the 2008-2009 school year, CPS will open six reconstituted
(turnaround) schools. Three schools will be managed by the Chief
Education Office and three will be managed by the Academy of Urban
School Leadership.
Chief Education Office
Harper High School
Nicolas Copernicus Elementary School
Robert Fulton Elementary School
Academy of Urban School Leadership
Orr Academy High School
Howe School of Excellence
Morton School of Excellence
The branded marketing campaign for the Turnaround Schools is:
Teach Chicago Turnarounds--Change Schools, Change Lives
http://www.teachchicagoturnarounds.org/
Approximately 275 educators will be hired to change the school
climate by teaching and aggressively setting high expectations for
positive learning and success. As of July 28, 2008--about 88% of
qualified teachers have been identified to teach in the Elementary and
High School Turnaround Schools.
Listed below are indicators of how the recruitment efforts have
progressed.
2,172 individuals have submitted resumes
After the initial screening, 404 candidates have been
identified as qualified teachers
62% have advanced degrees
30% have graduated from a school considered a ``Top 50
School of Education'' by U.S. News & World Reports
3% are National Board Certified Teachers
Over 9,500 hits have been recorded on the Teach Chicago
Turnarounds website across 37 countries/territories as of July 28,
2008.
B.) Model hiring initiative--Area 14
In partnership with The New Teacher Project, Office of Recruitment
& Workforce Planning have provided focused teacher recruitment support
for the Englewood Community in Chicago, known as Area 14. This area is
comprised of 23 elementary schools that reside in a neighborhood
experiencing poverty and high criminal activities. The goal is to
collaborate with each Area 14 school to ensure that (1) the schools are
able to hire as early as possible; (2) school staff is trained and
given resources to make the best teacher hiring decisions; and (3) all
teacher vacancies are filled with quality teachers before the start of
the 2008-2009 school year.
This strategy provides intensive recruitment enhancements that are
supported by technology and prescreening of candidates. As of July 1,
2008 the following indicators have occurred that successfully
demonstrates how this initiative as progressed.
Over 1,000 resumes have been prescreened and analyzed for
Area 14 schools
After the Initial Screening, 463 candidates have been
identified as qualified teachers
Nearly 40% of these candidates hold multiple endorsements
Many candidates have more than 2 years of experience of
classroom teaching
Many candidates are qualified to teach in high-need
subject areas
iii. principal initiatives
School leaders must have strong competencies in evaluating
instruction, implementing data-driving decisions, and providing staff
development. Also, principals are charged with having an efficient
operations building that produces the school's capacity to be
effective, accountable, and successful. The recruitment pipeline for
identifying administrators who hold these competencies were generously
supported by The Chicago Public Education Fund.
A.) The fellowship in urban school leadership
Overview: The Fellowship is a school leadership experience that
provides future district administrators an opportunity to explore the
strategies and methods that are transforming Chicago Public Schools.
Fellowship in Urban School Leadership invites outstanding experienced
and aspiring principals from around the country to experience why CPS
is a national model for urban school reform. Fellowship participants
share a passion and commitment to urban school leadership and an
interest in building careers at CPS. Focused on instructional
leadership, change management and data-driven decision making, this
fellowship offers a rigorous combination of professional development,
school-based project practicum, principal mentor and a former
successful CPS principal that serves as a supervising principal for the
Fellows. Complimentary housing, local transportation and cultural
events provide candidates a comprehensive understanding of what a
world-class city has to offer and in return, a clear understanding of
what students expect and need.
Listed below are program characteristics that were delivered from
July 6, 2008 through July 25, 2008.
Fellows were hosted at various CPS summer schools to
identify day to day school operations and priorities implemented at the
school level.
Fellows shadowed a CPS principal and participated in
school activities, programs and explored various cultural venues that
enhanced school-based learning.
Fellows participated in professional development
specifically designed for this program; entitled ``Leadership for
Change'', which was delivered by Northwestern University's Kellogg
School of Management.
Fellows completed data-driven projects that were unique to
their host schools.
As prospective district administrators, Fellows had the
opportunity to meet with CPS educational leaders to observe, share
experiences, ideas and best practice reflecting our commitment to be
the best urban school district in the nation.
B.) Strategic human resources--principal workshops
In partnership with The New Teacher Project, the Office of
Recruitment & Workforce Planning scheduled another series of workshops,
entitled ``Principal Strategic Human Resources Workshops.'' The
curriculum is focused on the essential skills administrators need in
order to effectively recruit, select, cultivate and hire high-quality
teachers, particularly those in shortage subject areas.
The relevance of this strategy is providing new district principals
the tools and skills needed to identify those teachers whom they view
as effective instructors committed to improving student achievement.
Also, these sessions emphasize the importance of early hiring and early
staffing which aligns with the district's Early Hiring Incentives for
schools.
In its second year, 109 principals who are considered first year
principals in CPS were invited to attend. These sessions were scheduled
throughout February thru April and focused on the following areas:
Developing Strategic Staffing Plan
Marketing Your School
Building an Interview Model
Conducting the Interview
It is critical that school leaders have the tools and foundation to
implement hiring strategies that attracts qualified and effective
teachers since they are the hiring authorities at the school-based
level as noted within the Board of Education policies.
iv. university outreach
In its second year, Recruitment & Workforce Planning hosted the
Annual Dean's Summit to provide information regarding the district's
priorities and hiring needs for the upcoming year. Over 70 national
universities and 5 foundations were invited to attend.
Listed below were the initiatives discussed at the Annual Dean's
Summit.
My voice, my survey
Summary: This session discussed the findings of a district
initiated report about satisfaction levels of parents and students
regarding their school's performance on academics and school
environment. The information enabled university students to be better
prepared in understanding the school climate and the level of family
involvement for each participating school.
Turnaround schools
Summary: The Office of School Turnarounds presented the district's
mission to lead the transformation of the lowest performing schools
into higher achieving schools--without moving students from their
respective schools. These strategies include maximizing internal
capacity; developing coordinated programmatic strategies, and
establishing funding partners with nonprofit and corporate communities.
Leadership and talent management for principals
Summary: In February 2007, Chicago Public Schools and the Chicago
Public Education Fund implemented an initiative focused on aggressively
recruiting transformational leadership talent who have succeeded in
significantly improving the academic achievement in high needs schools.
These initiatives include The Fellowship in Urban School Leadership for
external CPS candidates and Pathways to School Leadership for current
CPS educators who hold high-potential talent.
Student teaching program
Summary: The program is designed to identify quality student
teachers by offering an intensive student teaching experience that will
support their career development during the final phases of their
certification program. The 2008 Student Teaching Application, Screening
Model and the University Agreements were discussed and the process on
how the district identifies and supports Student Teachers.
______
U.S. Congress,
Washington, DC, July 23, 2008.
Hon. Adrian M. Fenty, Mayor,
District of Columbia.
Dear Mayor Fenty: Thank you for testifying at the July 17, 2008
hearing of the Committee on Education and Labor on ``Mayor and
Superintendent Partnerships in Education: Closing the Achievement
Gap.''
Representative Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX), chairman of the Higher
Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness Subcommittee and
member of the Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education
Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in writing to the following
questions:
1. In the Department's report, there is no data on certified
bilingual or English as a second language teachers for Washington, D.C.
For Georgia, it was reported that there was a need for an additional
5,000 teachers in this specialty area over the next 5 years. What are
you doing to ensure that you have enough well-prepared teachers for
students who are English language learners? What are you doing to equip
your current teachers to meet the needs of these students?
2. What graduation rates do your schools need to meet to make AYP
either by meeting the target or making ``safe harbor''?
3. I along with Rep. Scott, Rep. Grijalva, Rep. Davis, and many of
my colleagues on this committee introduced the Graduation Promise Act
to address the schools that are struggling the most to produce high
school graduates. What are your views on the need for a large scale
effort in this area?
Representative Danny K. Davis (D-IL), member of the Higher
Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness Subcommittee and
member of the Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education
Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in writing to the following
questions:
1. As you are aware, I also serve as Chairman of the House
Authorizing Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, and the
Subcommittee recently finished considering legislation to bring the
District's Charter School program and board under the City's control.
It seems that here in the District, and around the country for that
matter, we have gotten so far away from the original conception of
charter schools, which were to be innovative models of education,
experiments in fact, that would ultimately transfer into our public
schools. However, that is not what we are seeing. Instead, we just see
the creation of more charter schools. The KIPP model does not make its
way into Hines Junior High, but into a new KIPP school. What is your
administration doing to make the sharing of information between public
charter schools and traditional public schools more of a priority than
the addition of new charter schools?
2. In your opinion, how do we make the District's public schools
more attractive to parents?
3. What parental involvement initiatives are you or Chancellor Rhee
proposing to supplement the City's comprehensive educational reform
efforts?
4. Last week, the City Council approved new regulations for
homeschooling. The standards set for homeschooling parents are created
by, enforced by, and assessed for compliance by the Office of the State
Superintendent of Education (OSSE) at its sole discretion. Such a set
of regulations provides no impartial due process protections for
homeschooling parents given that the standards are set, controlled, and
measured by OSSE. How will you direct OSSE to preserve the due process
rights for parents conducting constitutionally-protected activities?
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
questions to the Committee close of business on Wednesday, July 30,
2008--the date on which the hearing record will close. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
George Miller,
Chairman.
______
U.S. Congress,
Washington, DC, July 23, 2008.
Michelle Rhee, Chancellor,
District of Columbia Public Schools, Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. Rhee: Thank you for testifying at the July 17, 2008
hearing of the Committee on Education and Labor on ``Mayor and
Superintendent Partnerships in Education: Closing the Achievement
Gap.''
Representative Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX), chairman of the Higher
Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness Subcommittee and
member of the Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education
Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in writing to the following
questions:
1. In the Department's report, there is no data on certified
bilingual or English as a second language teachers for Washington, D.C.
For Georgia, it was reported that there was a need for an additional
5,000 teachers in this specialty area over the next 5 years. What are
you doing to ensure that you have enough well prepared teachers for
students who are English language learners? What are you doing to equip
your current teachers to meet the needs of these students?
1. What graduation rates do your schools need to meet to make AYP
either by meeting the target or making ``safe harbor''?
2. I along with Rep. Scott, Rep. Grijalva, Rep. Davis, and many of
my colleagues on this committee introduced the Graduation Promise Act
to address the schools that are struggling the most to produce high
school graduates. What are your views on the need for a large scale
effort in this area?
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
questions to the Committee close of business on Wednesday, July 30,
2008--the date on which the hearing record will close. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
George Miller,
Chairman.
______
Responses to Questions for the Record From Ms. Rhee
Dear Chairman Miller: Thank you for inviting me to testify at the
July 17, 2008 hearing of the Committee on Education and Labor on
``Mayor and Superintendent Partnerships in Education: Closing the
Achievement Gap.''
I appreciate the opportunity to respond to Representative Ruben
Hinojosa's follow up questions. The questions, along with my answers,
follow below:
1. In the Department's report, there is no data on certified
bilingual or English as a second language teachers for Washington, D.C.
For Georgia, it was reported that there was a need for an additional
5,000 teachers in this specialty area over the next 5 years. What are
you doing to ensure that you have enough well prepared teachers for
students who are English language learners? What are you doing to equip
your current teachers to meet the needs of these students?
This year, DCPS instituted a certification process for language
programs at all our schools. This will ensure that schools have
effective English Language Learners (ELL) and Language Delivery Models.
We want to ensure that we also have enough certified teachers to
fulfill the needs of our ELL's. The certification process for schools
will allow us to manage programs and make accurate estimates about
personnel needs.
In addition, while the number of DCPS students with ELL needs has
not increased recently, the interest in learning a second language as
enrichment has. Therefore, we are developing new language immersion
programs and are making special efforts to recruit teachers trained in
Dual Language and Foreign Language Instruction and provide current
teachers with new training opportunities in these areas to staff those
programs.
We have partnerships with the Chinese Embassy and the Embassy of
Spain that allow us to bring teachers from both countries to the
District to teach our students. About 18 teachers from these countries
will be teaching in DCPS schools during coming school year. These
relationships are great benefits to DCPS, addressing some of our major
language needs as well as offering a cultural exchange that benefits
our countries and our students.
Another challenge continues to be closing the achievement gap
experienced by many of our ELL's. Toward this end, we are instituting
an aggressive professional development plan for all teachers for the
upcoming year which will include Cross-Cultural Language and Academic
Development Training (CLAD) and Content and Language Integration as a
Means of Bridging Success (CLIMBS). CLAD is a course designed to
prepare ESL teachers around core teaching areas, such as lesson
planning around themes and focusing on scaffolding. CLIMBS is a course
designed to help all educators in applying the WIDA English Language
Proficiency (ELP) standards in their classroom instruction using a
sheltered instruction approach.
In addition, by examining the data in schools across our district,
we are trying to identify the existing programs and practices that are
most successful for our ESL students, so that we can replicate those
practices. This year teachers will receive mentoring and embedded
professional development to implement those practices in their
classrooms.
Finally, will work with The Office of the State Superintendent of
Education (OSSE) over the coming year to redefine our certification
guidelines for ESL teachers and create new pathways to ESL
certification in partnership with some of our local universities.
Regarding recruitment, we continue to recruit nationally and
internationally. As we prepare for the coming school year, we are
working closely with schools to ensure that our classrooms are equipped
with appropriate materials in the languages that our students speak.
2. What graduation rates do your schools need to meet to make AYP
either by meeting the target or making ``safe harbor''?
The three indicators for AYP for DCPS are proficiency rates on
Reading and Math, testing participation rate, attendance rate (for
elementary and middle schools only) and graduation rate (for high
schools only). The graduation rate is defined as ``the total number of
graduates for a given year with a regular diploma divided by the sum of
the number of graduates (for that year) and dropouts for the current
year and the three preceding years.'' This definition was developed by
a previous DCPS administration and will be used until SY2009. We
expect, in cooperation with OSSE, to create a new definition that will
go into effect after SY2009. The current graduation rate target for
DCPS schools is 66.23%. Schools that meet or exceed this target achieve
this component of AYP. Schools below the target also can achieve AYP if
their graduation rate has increased by one percentage point from the
prior year. The Class of 2007 graduation rate is included in the 2008
AYP calculations for high schools.
3. I along with Rep. Scott, Rep. Grijalva, Rep. Davis, and many of
my colleagues on this committee introduced the Graduation Promise Act
to address the schools that are struggling the most to produce high
school graduates. What are your views on the need for a large scale
effort in this area?
I certainly think that a strong effort is needed in this area.
Under my leadership, we are conducting transcript audits of all DCPS
High School students, to ensure that every student is on track to
graduate and that every schedule reflects the courses that students
truly need in order to fulfill the district's graduation requirements.
In addition, we are structuring our course offerings at 9th and 10th
grade so that students are better prepared to be successful in reading
and mathematics. We are providing a double dose of these subjects to
students who are performing below grade level, at these grade levels,
to help them ``catch up'', so that they can begin to experience the
academic success that will keep them in school. We are also providing a
variety of pathways to enable students to make up classes that are
required for graduation that they have failed, including evening
classes, weekend course offerings and alternative settings. By creating
these additional options, we are helping prevent students from falling
too far behind their peers, which means, again, that they will be more
likely to stay in school. Finally, we are planning professional
development for our high school teachers that will help them develop
challenging lessons that have ``real world'' applications, to keep
students engaged and motivated to learn.
Best wishes,
Michelle Rhee, Chancellor.
______
U.S. Congress,
Washington, DC, July 23, 2008.
Beverly Hall, Ed.D, Superintendent,
Atlanta Public Schools, Atlanta, GA.
Dear Dr. Hall: Thank you for testifying at the July 17, 2008
hearing of the Committee on Education and Labor on ``Mayor and
Superintendent Partnerships in Education: Closing the Achievement
Gap.''
Representative Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX), chairman of the Higher
Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness Subcommittee and
member of the Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education
Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in writing to the following
questions:
1. In the Department's report, there is no data on certified
bilingual or English as a second language teachers for Washington, D.C.
For Georgia, it was reported that there was a need for an additional
5,000 teachers in this specialty area over the next 5 years. What are
you doing to ensure that you have enough well prepared teachers for
students who are English language learners? What are you doing to equip
your current teachers to meet the needs of these students?
2. What graduation rates do your schools need to meet to make AYP
either by meeting the target or making ``safe harbor''?
3. I along with Rep. Scott, Rep. Grijalva, Rep. Davis, and many of
my colleagues on this committee introduced the Graduation Promise Act
to address the schools that are struggling the most to produce high
school graduates. What are your views on the need for a large scale
effort in this area?
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
questions to the Committee close of business on Wednesday, July 30,
2008--the date on which the hearing record will close. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
George Miller,
Chairman.
______
Responses to Questions for the Record From Ms. Hall
1. In the Department's report, there is no data on certified
bilingual or English as a second language teachers for Washington, D.C.
For Georgia, it was reported that there was a need for an additional
5,000 teachers in this specialty area over the next 5 years. What are
you doing to ensure that you have enough well prepared teachers for
students who are English language learners? What are you doing to equip
your current teachers to meet the needs of these students?
The Atlanta Public Schools' enrollment is about 3 percent English
language learners, and we have not been experiencing the same dramatic
growth in English language learners that the suburban districts in the
metro area and many of the rural counties in the state are seeing.
Despite this, we still need both teachers who specialize in English-
for-Speakers-of-Other-Languages and content-area teachers familiar with
delivering instruction effectively to ELL students. To develop our
workforce of ESOL teachers, the district offers a year-long endorsement
program, one of many in-house professional development opportunities,
that allows APS teachers certified in other areas to add the ESOL
qualification to their state certificates. On a larger scale, our ESOL
teachers are currently undergoing ``Train the Trainer'' courses so that
they will be able to go into every school and train the entire faculty
in the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP), a research-
based framework of best practices for ELL students. This protocol
focuses on individual assessment of students and differentiation of
instruction based on a student's level of language skill. This approach
is revolutionary for our ESOL teachers because it focuses on content-
area instruction in addition to English language instruction. Research
shows that this type of assessment and differentiation also benefits
native English speakers in the classroom.
2. What graduation rates do your schools need to meet to make AYP
either by meeting the target or making ``safe harbor''?
In Georgia, high schools must achieve a 70 percent graduation rate
to make AYP. Schools not achieving this rate can make AYP if the
graduation rate improves 10 or more percentage points over the prior
year, so long as the current year's rate is 50 percent or greater. In
other words, a school that increased the graduation rate from 41 to 51
percent would make AYP, and a school that increased from 25 to 35
percent would not.
3. I along with Rep. Scott, Rep. Grijalva, Rep. Davis, and many of
my colleagues on this committee introduced the Graduation Promise Act
to address the schools that are struggling the most to produce high
school graduates. What are your views on the need for a large scale
effort in this area?
In Atlanta, we have found that the wholesale transformation of our
high schools is absolutely critical to preparing students for success
in the 21st century. The large, impersonal, cookie-cutter comprehensive
high school model fails to provide the rigor, relevance and
relationships that our children need, especially those students most in
need of academic and social support. When I came to Atlanta, we
targeted two of our strategic initiatives toward our high schools'
performance: Project GRAD (Graduation Really Achieves Dreams), which is
a K-12 initiative partially funded through Title I funds, and high
school reform, which is partially funded by the Gates foundation.
We introduced Project GRAD in 2000, and our first crop of Project
GRAD scholars graduated from our high schools in 2004. The success of
this program is irrefutable: from 2003 to 2007, graduation rates for
Project GRAD high schools have improved stunningly. Project GRAD is now
in three high schools--and all three schools now exceed the national
graduation average for urban schools. South Atlanta High School's rate
rose from 37 percent to 74.7 percent in just four years. Washington
increased their rate from 62 percent to 86.8 percent. And Carver's rate
leapt 43 percentage points from 23 percent to 66 percent.
The challenges of reaching more students to raise these rates to
our 90 percent systemwide on-time graduation goal led us to implement
our second initiative: transforming our high schools into small
learning communities and small schools. We piloted this program with
the creation of the New Schools at Carver: five small schools, each
with its own unique thematic focus. Carver's reform is a model of sea
change. In addition to the aforementioned 43 percentage point
graduation rate increase, all five of the new schools at Carver met the
academic requirements for AYP in 2007, attendance is above 90 percent,
and 85 students are already dually enrolled and earning credits at
Georgia State University. Carver is located in a challenging
neighborhood, but through high expectations, intimate learning
environments and instruction relevant to 21st century skills, we're
taking away the excuses and showing that we can and should expect
success in urban schools. We will roll out this type of transformation
to all high schools by the 2010-11 school year.
______
[Whereupon, at 1:04 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]