[Joint House and Senate Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-13
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY ACT
REAUTHORIZATION: IMPROVING NCLB
TO CLOSE THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR
U.S. House of Representatives
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH,
EDUCATION, LABOR AND PENSIONS
U.S. Senate
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 13, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-9
__________
Printed for the use of the House Committee on Education and Labor
and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
33-757 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 Ranking Minority Member
Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Lynn C. Woolsey, California Michael N. Castle, Delaware
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Carolyn McCarthy, New York Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
John F. Tierney, Massachusetts Judy Biggert, Illinois
Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
David Wu, Oregon Ric Keller, Florida
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Susan A. Davis, California John Kline, Minnesota
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Kenny Marchant, Texas
Timothy H. Bishop, New York Tom Price, Georgia
Linda T. Sanchez, California Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Charles W. Boustany, Jr.,
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Louisiana
David Loebsack, Iowa Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New
Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania York
John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky Rob Bishop, Utah
Phil Hare, Illinois David Davis, Tennessee
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Timothy Walberg, Michigan
Joe Courtney, Connecticut Dean Heller, Nevada
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director
Vic Klatt, Minority Staff Director
----------
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
TOM HARKIN, Iowa JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
PATTY MURRAY, Washington JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
JACK REED, Rhode Island LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
BARACK OBAMA, Illinois PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
BERNARD SANDERS (I), Vermont WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio TOM COBURN, M.D., Oklahoma
J. Michael Myers, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Katherine Brunett McGuire, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 13, 2007................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Altmire, Hon. Jason, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Pennsylvania, prepared statement of............... 113
Andrews, Hon. Robert E., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Representative in Congress from the State of
New Jersey, insertion for the record:
The Health Report to the American People as included in
the Working Group's Final Recommendations, released
September 29, 2006, ``Health Care That Works for All
Americans,'' Internet URL.............................. 117
Ehlers, Hon. Vernon, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan, prepared statement of................... 113
Enzi, Hon. Michael B., Ranking Minority Member, Senate
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions,
prepared statement of...................................... 6
Insertion for the record: Letter submitted by Dr. McBride 125
Hare, Hon. Phil, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, prepared statement of......................... 115
Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., Chairman, Senate Committee on
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions...................... 5
McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ``Buck,'' Senior Republican Member,
Committee on Education and Labor........................... 3
Miller, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 2
Insertions for the record:
The prepared statement of Dr. Linda Blumberg......... 119
The prepared statement of David Griffith............. 128
The prepared statement of the National Association of
Secondary School Principals (NASSP)................ 133
Internet address to ``NASSP Legislative
Recommendations for High School Reform''........... 136
Internet address to NASSP Policy Recommendations for
Middle Level Reform................................ 136
NASSP NCLB recommendations........................... 136
Letter from the National School Boards Association
(NSBA)............................................. 141
NSBA Quick Reference Guide........................... 143
Letter from the National Parents and Teachers
Association (PTA).................................. 147
Statement of Witnesses:
Barnes, Roy, Aspen Institute Commission on No Child Left
Behind, former Governor of Georgia......................... 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Burmaster, Elizabeth, president, Council of Chief State
School Officers............................................ 82
Prepared statement of.................................... 84
Casserly, Michael, Council of Great City Schools............. 29
Prepared statement of.................................... 32
Henderson, Wade J., president and CEO, Leadership Conference
on Civil Rights............................................ 20
Prepared statement of.................................... 23
McElroy, Edward J., president, American Federation of
Teachers................................................... 44
Prepared statement of.................................... 46
AFT report, ``Building Minds, Minding Buildings''
Internet address....................................... 116
Rothkopf, Arthur J., Business Coalition for Student
Achievement (BCSA)......................................... 25
Prepared statement of.................................... 26
Recommendations from BCSA................................ 117
Endorsements from BCSA................................... 118
Weaver, Reg, president, the National Education Association... 48
Prepared statement of.................................... 50
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY ACT
REAUTHORIZATION: IMPROVING NCLB
TO CLOSE THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP
----------
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Education and Labor
U.S. Senate
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Washington, DC
----------
The committees met, pursuant to call, at 9:34 a.m., in Room
2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. George Miller
[chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor] presiding.
Present from the Committee on Education and Labor:
Representatives Miller, Kildee, Payne, Andrews, Scott, Woolsey,
Hinojosa, Tierney, Kucinich, Wu, Holt, Davis of California,
Davis of Illinois, Grijalva, Bishop of New York, Sanchez,
Sarbanes, Sestak, Loebsack, Hirono, Altmire, Yarmuth, Hare,
Clarke, Courtney, Shea-Porter, McKeon, Petri, Hoekstra, Castle,
Ehlers, Biggert, Keller, Kline, McMorris Rodgers, Price,
Fortuno, Boustany, Foxx, Kuhl, and Walberg.
Present from the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions: Senators Kennedy, Clinton, Brown, Alexander, Burr,
Isakson, and Murkowski.
Staff present: Aaron Albright, Press Secretary; Tylease
Alli, Hearing Clerk; Alice Cain, Senior Education Policy
Advisor (K-12); Molly Carter, Legal Intern, Education; Adrienne
Dunbar, Legislative Fellow, Education; Amy Elverum, Legislative
Fellow, Education; Denise Forte, Director of Education Policy;
Michael Gaffin, Staff Assistant, Labor; Lloyd Horwich, Policy
Advisor for Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and
Secretary Education; Lamont Ivey, Staff Assistant, Education;
Thomas Kiley, Communications Director; Ann-Frances Lambert,
Administrative Assistant to Director of Education Policy;
Stephanie Moore, General Counsel; Alex Nock, Deputy Staff
Director; Joe Novotny, Chief Clerk; Lisette Partelow, Staff
Assistant, Education; Rachel Racusen, Deputy Communications
Director; Theda Zawaiza, Senior Disability Policy Advisor; Mark
Zuckerman, Staff Director; James Bergeron, Deputy Director of
Education and Human Resources Policy; Robert Borden, General
Counsel; Kathryn Bruns, Legislative Assistant; Jessica Gross,
Deputy Press Secretary; Taylor Hansen, Legislative Assistant;
Victor Klatt, Staff Director; Lindsey Mask, Director of
Outreach; Chad Miller, Professional Staff; Susan Ross, Director
of Education and Human Resources Policy; Linda Stevens, Chief
Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel; Sally Stroup, Deputy
Staff Director; and Brad Thomas, Professional Staff Member.
Chairman Miller [presiding]. The Committee on Education and
Labor will come to order for the purposes of conducting a joint
hearing along with members of the Senate from the Health,
Employment, Labor and Pensions Committee.
And I would like to welcome and recognize the gentleman
from California, Mr. McKeon, the ranking member of the House
Education and Labor Committee, and also Senator Kennedy, the
chair of the Senate committee, and the Senator John Isakson
from Georgia will be filling in for Mr. Enzi. Mr. Enzi is
detained in Wyoming this morning.
Each of these members will present an opening statement,
without objection. All other members may submit their opening
statements for the record.
When the Supreme Court said in its Brown v. Board of
Education decision over 50 years ago that segregated schools
cannot be equal, it affirmed the right of every child to an
education on equal terms.
But despite that decision, and although many children have
received a first-rate education, many others have not. Far too
many children still do not have the educational opportunities
that they deserve.
Instead, there has been a persistent academic achievement
gap and a persistent education gap. Our nation has become too
complacent about both. For far too long these problems were
relegated to the backburner here in Washington, despite the
harm to our children and our country.
The No Child Left Behind law brought these gaps to the
forefront again, and most supporters and opponents of the law
will agree that we must make the closing of these gaps a
national priority. That is the point of No Child Left Behind.
At its essence, the law boils down to a very simple goal:
making sure all children across the country can read and do
math and science at grade level so they can have the brightest
possible future. No child should be denied the same chance as
another because of low expectations, systemic neglect,
inadequate resources or the failure of a vision about what we
can do to move all children forward.
In fact, closing these gaps is the least that we should
expect from our wealthy and powerful nation. It is not too much
to ask if we are to have any hope of retaining our nation's
position of global leadership and our moral credibility.
While it is critical that we remain faithful to the goals
of No Child Left Behind, it is equally important that 5 years
after its enactment we seek out new and better ideas for how
best to achieve these goals.
This hearing is a formal hearing of which will be a
bipartisan, comprehensive and inclusive process to improve the
No Child Left Behind law. We will hear a broad range of
opinions on which provisions of the law are working well and
which are not for our schools and for our children.
There will be some disagreement, both today and in the
coming months, but by listening to each other and hearing a
broad range of views and concerns, Congress will be better able
to help address these concerns when we begin re-writing the law
later this year.
The discussion about No Child Left Behind has, at times,
been heated, but it has also been healthy and much-needed.
After all, these are the most sweeping education reforms since
the 1960s when the original Elementary and Secondary Education
Act was passed as part of the War on Poverty.
I am confident that the discussion that formally begins
today will lead us, in the end, to enact legislation that will
be responsive to the legitimate concerns that have been raised
about the law and its implementation. We have a lot of ground
to cover, from how we best promote and measure student progress
to how we attract the highest-quality teachers and principals
to every school. These and other topics will be subjects of
future hearings.
I believe I speak for all of the members of this committee
in thanking our witnesses and the coalitions and organizations
they represent for their extraordinary time and thought and
care that have gone into their recommendations. Your expertise
will be enormously helpful today as we move forward with the
reauthorization process in the months to come.
Lastly, I want to emphasize that I come to this process
with an open mind, and I am eager to hear from, and work
together with, both supporters and critics of the law. There is
no question that we need to improve the law and properly fund
it, but the bottom line is that we cannot afford to return to
the status quo that existed before No Child Left Behind.
We must remain dedicated to the principle that every child
deserves a first-rate education because we know that every
child, if given the opportunity, can learn and succeed. Helping
our nation's children and families is what this committee is
all about. I look forward to working with all of you as we
intensify our efforts on their behalf.
And I would like now to yield to the senior Republican on
the Committee on Education and Labor, Mr. McKeon, for his
opening statement.
Mr. McKeon. Thank you, Chairman Miller.
And thank you to our friends from the Senate for joining us
this morning.
Today, as we begin the process to reauthorize the No Child
Left Behind Act, we have an opportunity to reflect back upon
some of the progress we have made over the past 5 years. Here
are just a few.
After nearly 4 decades of seeing it widen, the achievement
gap in our schools is finally starting to close. The
conversation over how best to educate every child it taking
place, not just in Congress and the state houses, but at
kitchen tables, boardrooms and schools all across America,
representing the first time that our nation truly has committed
to leaving no child behind.
Federal funding for elementary and secondary schools has
reached record levels. Consider this chart on the screen, which
shows that federal funding for elementary and secondary
programs has risen by more than a third since NCLB became law.
And Title 1 funding for the most needy schools has risen even
more sharply.
The Title 1 commitment is particularly noteworthy because,
as you can see on this second chart, the Title 1 commitment
under NCLB far exceeds funding for the same programs before the
law was enacted.
In short, while we are expecting more, we are also
providing more resources to schools with the hope that they
will deliver.
And, finally, parents have become empowered with more
educational options under NCLB than ever before. For example,
the law has made it possible for students in underperforming
schools to transfer to better performing public schools,
including charter schools, or receive additional educational
services, such as private tutoring.
Still, challenges remain. Yes, the achievement gap is
closing, but it is not closing quickly enough. Yes, there is an
ongoing discussion about how best to educate every child, but
within that discussion are some voices in Congress and in the
educational establishment urging us to back away from holding
schools accountable for the education they are or are not
providing our children. And, yes, parents do have more options
when it comes to giving their child the best possible
education, but there still aren't enough options available or
utilized.
On this last challenge, in particular, I believe Congress
has an obligation to act. At its heart, No Child Left Behind is
parental choice law, and, indeed, if we are truly serious about
strengthening NCLB, then we must get truly serious about giving
parents more tools so their children can thrive under it. And
that starts by empowering them with more choice.
That is why today I am introducing the Empowering Parents
through Choice Act, legislation that would provide expanded
choice for parents whose children are trapped in schools that
have consistently underperformed.
Specifically, the bill will authorize opportunity
scholarships to students attending schools in need of
restructuring under NCLB. In short, if a child's school
underperforms for 5 consecutive years, then why any parent
should be forced to send him or her there for a 6th year?
Mr. Chairman, I enter the reauthorization process with is
single goal: Improving No Child Left Behind so it can continue
the positive impact in our schools that we are beginning to see
that it has had for the past few years. And I believe that
empowering parents with more options, more choices is essential
to reaching that goal.
I remain open-minded about all the potential changes to the
NCLB that our committee and our colleagues in the Senate may
consider over the next several months. For example, I believe
we need to look for new and innovative ways to get the best
teachers possible into our nation's classrooms, and I believe
we need to work together to find the appropriate balance
between accountability and flexibility, where appropriate.
At a roundtable in my congressional district several weeks
ago, this balance was brought up on several occasions by
education stakeholders in attendance, and their comments placed
a particular emphasis on English language learners and special
education students. I look forward to pursuing these and other
matters in this hearing, as well as those hearings we will hold
over the next several weeks and months.
Indeed, we have a long road ahead of us, but ending in an
agreement to strengthen this law and empower more parents will
make it all worthwhile.
I thank the witnesses for being here, and I look forward to
their testimony.
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much.
Senator Kennedy?
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I join in
welcoming our witnesses to the joint hearing on the
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
Our committees worked closely together on the No Child Left
Behind Act, and we look forward to continuing our partnership
on this reauthorization.
Our goal in the No Child Left Behind Act was to set high
standards, close achievement gaps, strengthen public schools
and enable every child to receive a good education. Our
priority this year is to make the improvements in the act
needed to deliver on the commitment made in 2002. Schools
obviously need greater help in achieving the act's goals, and
this is no time to retreat.
The act is based on the fundamental principle that every
child counts--black or white, native-born or immigrant,
disabled or non-disabled. We cannot allow the great hope of
Brown v. Board of Education to provide a quality education for
all children to go unrealized. We cannot allow rampant
inequality to undermine the opportunity and progress in our
schools.
The No Child Left Behind Act has already enabled schools
around the nation to make unprecedented progress toward those
goals. All 50 states now have standards, assessments and
systems of accountability to track the achievement of students,
based not on the performance of its overall student population,
but on its progress in closing achievement gaps and enabling
all students to meet specific standards. Schools throughout
America now are using data from the act to develop better ways
to improve instruction and meet the needs of individual
students.
Our Senate committee has heard in recent weeks about some
of these changes. At the Achievable Dream Academy in Newport
News, Virginia, longer school days and a more rigorous
curriculum have enabled African-American students to pass the
Virginia state assessment at rates equal or almost equal to
white students. A public-private partnership in Boston has
improved the recruitment, preparation, training and retention
of teachers through an intensive, year-long residency program.
We know, however, that we have only just begun. At this
stage of the reauthorization, we look forward to hearing a
range of ideas to build on the initial success of the act and
deal with its problems.
We need more effective ways to measure student growth
toward standards and to recognize schools for that progress.
Our goal is to focus on the lowest-performing schools, instead
of simply classifying so many as failures.
We can't just label schools. We must help them improve.
Over 9,000 low-income schools are confronting their weaknesses
as they develop and implement the improvement plans required by
law. The federal role in assisting these schools may be our
greatest challenge, and it is a top priority for this
reauthorization.
We must improve the quality of assessments, so that they
better reflect what is taught in the classroom and are more
useful in making decisions about teaching and learning. English
language learners and students with disabilities deserve the
full benefits of the act, and that requires fair, accurate,
reliable ways to measure their performance.
We must strengthen the workforce of teachers and close the
gap in teacher distribution in high-poverty and high-minority
schools. The best way to close the achievement gap for students
is to see that they all have good teachers.
We must give students the support and services they need to
come to school ready to learn. We must reengage parents and
whole communities in the process, and make them stronger
partners in the education of their children.
And we must help states develop high standards that are
aligned to rigorous curriculums, so that students who graduate
from school are ready to compete in the workforce or do well in
college.
Most of all, we must use this reauthorization to give
schools the resources they need to implement these essential
reforms. We can talk about the increase in resources, but we
still have to recognize what the appropriations committees
under Republicans and Democrats have recognized, and that is
some 3.2 million children are left out and left behind.
If we shortchange our schools, we are shortchanging
America. Time and again, I have heard from teachers, principals
and administrators desperate for financial help to carry out
these reforms, especially in low-performing schools. We know we
can do better. All we need is the will to do it.
I look forward to hearing our witnesses' recommendations
and ideas on all of these issues.
I thank this extraordinary panel that we have here today,
Mr. Chairman, and we here in the Senate thank you very much for
your invitation to join with you in this important hearing.
Chairman Miller. Thank you, Senator Kennedy.
And now I would like to turn to Senator Isakson.
Senator Isakson. Well, Chairman Miller and Ranking Member
McKeon, it is good to be home again. I spent many a long hour
in this committee room back in 2001 working with you on No
Child Left Behind, and I am delighted to be here.
Rather than make the opening statement for Senator Enzi, I
would like to ask unanimous consent that his written statement
be submitted for the record.
Chairman Miller. So ordered.
[The statement of Senator Enzi follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael B. Enzi, Ranking Minority Member,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
I would like to thank Senator Kennedy and Congressman Miller for
hosting this hearing today. This will allow all of us to start with a
common set of recommendations as we begin work on the reauthorization
of No Child Left Behind.
As we move forward with this important process I want to make it
very clear that I support the four core principles of the No Child Left
Behind Act: all students at grade level in reading and math by 2014;
annual assessments and disaggregation of data; qualified teachers in
core academic subjects in every classroom; and timely information and
options for all parents.
Support of the four core principles does not infer that changes are
not needed in the No Child Left Behind Act. Rather, I believe that
changes need to be made to strengthen the law to better sustain these
core principles and provide additional supports to schools,
administrators and teachers to meet the principles.
As we move forward with this process I will be focused on the
impact this law has had on rural schools and students. Schools in rural
areas face obstacles and issues that are unique and very different from
other areas. We need to make sure that what we do does not have
unintended negative consequences on schools where there may be only 10
students and one teacher. These schools should not be penalized, when
they are working within the law to ensure that all students receive the
education they need to be successful. No rural school or student should
be left behind.
We heard last week in a roundtable in the HELP Committee that
teachers in Wyoming often travel 150 miles or more on a weekend to meet
with other teachers to learn from them. Just as teachers don't always
have easy access to quality professional development, students don't
have opportunities students in larger cities have. Students don't have
access to advanced classes or to early college programs--unless they
are offered on-line.
I will also focus on the importance of technology and how it can
better be used in our classrooms. Every school in Wyoming is wired.
This gives students and teachers access to on-line programs and
services. However, teachers often need more training and professional
development so they know how to incorporate technology and services
available via technology in the classroom. They need to know how to
match up with teachers across the state, across the country, and across
the world to enhance their work in the classroom.
I recently received recommendations from educators in Wyoming that
detail the changes they would like to see in No Child Left Behind to
make it work better for Wyoming administrators, teachers, students, and
parents. These recommendations were compiled from across the state and
represent a fair and balanced view of changes needed for Wyoming
schools. I look forward to working with educators, parents and
administrators in Wyoming to ensure that No Child Left Behind works for
their students.
To best serve those students we need to begin focusing on school
improvement activities to provide help schools and teachers need when
their school is designated as in need of improvement. It is clear there
is no silver bullet to fix schools that are falling behind. But, with
some assistance and knowledge, schools can be turned around and excel.
The Department of Education must improve the way it disseminates
positive results and best practices--schools need assistance and
information in order to implement effective school improvement
strategies and close the student achievement gap.
I look forward to working with each of you and your members as we
move forward with the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind. I
believe that we all want the same outcome--to make sure that every
student is prepared to be successful in the global economy. To
accomplish this we will need a bipartisan, bicameral approach to
reauthorization.
______
Senator Isakson. And then take the liberal license to the
introduce the first panelist, if you don't mind, Chairman
Miller.
Chairman Miller. That is quite all right.
Senator Isakson. Governor Roy Barnes and I go back a long
way. We were elected to the legislature in Georgia back in
1970s, Roy to the Senate, me to the House. We spent the better
part of 2 decades there and then both in 1990 ran for governor
and both of us got a lesson in humility from Zell Miller,
because he won the Democratic primary and then beat me in the
general election.
We returned to the legislature and replaced each other. I
took his Senate-numbered seat, and he took my House-numbered
seat. And then Roy went on to bigger and better things and
became governor of Georgia and did a magnificent job. He and
his wife, Marie, are dear friends with my wife, Diane, and I.
And they have three wonderful children and how many
grandchildren, Governor? Four grandchildren. I have you beat by
two on that so far.
Governor Barnes, during his tenure as governor, was a
remarkable education governor in terms of accountability, in
terms of class size, in terms of assessment. Roy really
pioneered what has laid the groundwork for Georgia's ever-
improving educational system.
I commend him for his effort in his recent report with
Governor Thompson on NCLB, and I am happy to welcome him today
to the House-Senate Education Committee hearing.
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much.
Governor Barnes, welcome.
And I want to welcome all of the panelists, and thank you
again for not just your appearance here this morning but for
all of the time you have been putting in over the last several
years to look at No Child Left Behind.
As was mentioned, Governor Barnes was the co-chair of the
Aspen Institute's Commission on No Child Left Behind and was
chair of the National Board of Professional and Teaching
Standards and chair of the Institute on Education Leadership.
Wade Henderson is the president and CEO of the Leadership
Conference on Civil Rights, one of the nation's strongest civil
rights organizations, founded in 1950, to help end
discrimination and promote the civil rights movements. Today,
nearly 200 national organizations are part of that conference.
Arthur Rothkopf served as the senior vice president of the
Chamber of Commerce since 2005 and has focused on education and
workforce development issues. Prior to his work with the
chamber, Mr. Rothkopf was the president of Lafayette College
for 12 years and before that was deputy secretary of the U.S.
Department of Transportation. He is a member of Secretary
Spellings' Commission on the Future of Higher Education.
Mike Casserly has been the executive director of the Great
City Schools since 1992 and has worked as director of
Legislation and Research prior to that time and has been a
great resource to this committee.
Ed McElroy is the president of the AFT since 2004, and he
started his work on education as a social studies and English
teacher in Warwick, Rhode Island. Mr. McElroy joined the AFT
Executive Council in 1974 and served as secretary treasurer for
12 years.
Reg Weaver is the president of the National Education
Association, where he is serving his second term as president.
He is a member of the board of directors, the National Board of
Professional Teaching Standards and executive board and the
National Council on Accreditation and Teaching Education.
Elizabeth Burmaster is the Wisconsin superintendent of
Public Construction and current president of the Council of
Chief State School Officers. She also chairs the council's
Committee on ESEA Reauthorization. Ms. Burmaster has worked for
25 years in a public school, teacher and principal, and she is
a board member of the National Center of Learning and
Citizenship and a member of the Education Commission of the
States and the Board of Advisors of the Pre-K Now.
Welcome to you all of you.
We will proceed in the order in which you were introduced.
Governor Barnes, we will begin with you.
When you start, there will be a green light that will go on
and then an orange light, which will give you an indication you
might want to start wrapping up, and then the red light. But we
want to make sure that you get time to cover those things that
you think are most important, so we will be a little bit
liberal on the lights here.
But, Governor Barnes, thank you again, and welcome.
STATEMENT OF ROY BARNES, ASPEN INSTITUTE COMMISSION ON NO CHILD
LEFT BEHIND, FORMER GOVERNOR OF GEORGIA
Mr. Barnes. Thank you, Chairman Miller and Chairman
Kennedy. We appreciate, on behalf of Tommy Thompson, my good
friend who is not here today but away on other business, we
appreciate the opportunity to come and share with you the
recommendations of the No Child Left Behind Commission that was
sponsored by the Aspen Institute and that we have delivered to
you.
I commend the chairman and ranking minority members for
their leadership in taking this unusual step of meeting
together so that we can make sure that this law receives its
full consideration and the importance that it deserves.
This is not about whether children learn Shakespeare more
or better, even though that is important. This is about whether
we are a competitive nation over the next 50 years and a nation
at all over the next 150 years.
Given that charge of making sure that skills and learning
are the basis of the new economy that we are all engaged in,
whether we want to be or not, the Commission on No Child Left
Behind was charged with conducting an analysis of the law and
also its implementation.
Our members were bipartisan. Of course, Secretary Thompson
and I were governors of different parties but good friends, and
still are and will remain, and our commission consisted of all
of the spectrum of Democrats and Republicans and all of the
spectrum of the different ones that are stakeholders in
education.
They spent the last year traveling the nation, hearing
testimony from all persons that wanted to talk to us or to give
us testimony. We heard 86 witnesses, including state officials
and superintendents. We received over 5,000 comments through
the e-mail of those who wanted to comment.
I will tell you that, as we travel the nation, there is a
great concern among our people that we have to improve
education and raise the standards so that the next generation
of Americans have a social standing and an income that is at
least equal to or greater to the present generation, and that
is a matter of great concern among our people.
This initial stage of the commission's work culminated in
the release of Beyond No Child Left Behind, which we have filed
with the committee and we recommended to your consideration.
Our report contains specific and actual recommendations,
about 75, for improving No Child Left Behind, and I hope that
you will use them as a blueprint for your reauthorization.
Now, I want to talk about just two of three of these points
this morning. The most important thing that happens in the
learning of a child comes from an effective teacher, and I am
here to tell you that teachers are underpaid, overworked and
not given the full consideration that they need. But we also
know that teacher quality has to be examined from a new
viewpoint.
The commission, therefore, recommends a sea change in No
Child Left Behind's teacher quality focus from solely being on
credentials to being effective. Instead of being evaluated only
by the requirements for entry into the teaching profession,
such as certification and licensure, teachers should have the
opportunity to demonstrate their effectiveness in the
classroom.
We recommend that teachers who produce learning gains and
receive a positive principal evaluation or peer review should
be recognized as a highly effective teacher. The commission is
not recommending that student learning gains be the sole and
only determinant of teacher effectiveness; however, we do
believe that that is part of the equation.
Now, this grew out of really our consideration of one of
the criticisms of No Child Left Behind, and that is that a
teacher and a classroom and a school could make more than a
year's progress in a year and still be labeled as not meeting
AYP, or annual yearly progress. That is unfair. Those teachers
that go the extra mile and produce more than a year's learning
in a year's time should be given the break.
And, in fact, one of the other recommendations we have is
that we go to a growth model. As long as we have a child on
grade level within 3 years, that if a child is making more than
a year's progress and can make grade level within 3 years, then
they should be found to be making AYP. This requires a data
system, a student information system, to see where children are
at the beginning of the year and where they are at the end of
the year.
One of the byproducts of that system, which we say should
be a joint federal-state process in building that data system,
is that you will be able to determine which teachers are making
the greatest gains. And the question is, are we going to ignore
that.
Now, there are some that criticize this--I am sorry, I am
over, let me just wrap up on this--there are some that
criticize this, and I suggest to you that we are not trying to
punish any teacher. This should be used as a professional
development tool to improve education.
And the last point I will make to you is this: It is time--
and we heard this as we went around the nation--that we are
more concerned about the children and the system of education
rather than the adults. Let's do whatever is necessary to
improve education and give our children the hope of America,
the hope that is the next generation, rather than saying, we
cannot do that because it might offend some of the adults.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Mr. Barnes follows:]
------
Chairman Miller. Thank you, Governor Barnes.
Mr. Henderson?
STATEMENT OF WADE HENDERSON, LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL
RIGHTS
Mr. Henderson. Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Chairman,
both to you and Chairman Kennedy, to Ranking Member McKeon and
Enzi and to all members of both committees for the opportunity
to participate in this important and historic hearing.
I am Wade Henderson, president and CEO of the Leadership
Conference on Civil Rights, the nation's oldest, largest and
most diverse civil and human rights coalition, with nearly 200
member organizations working to build an America as good as its
ideals.
The Leadership Conference is issuing a formal letter to the
committees today regarding the reauthorization of the No Child
Left Behind Act that includes both our core principles for
education reform and policy recommendations for changes to the
current law. I would ask that it be included along with the
written version of my testimony in the hearing record.
I would like to use the remainder of my time before the
committees today, however, to make a larger point regarding the
future of No Child Left Behind.
Now, for almost a century now, the civil rights community
has recognized that the twin pillars of American democracy have
been the right to vote and securing equal educational
opportunity for all Americans. In that regard, No Child Left
Behind may be one of the most important civil rights laws that
this Congress will address.
We urge you to be guided by the following principles as you
consider reauthorization.
First, federal education policy must be designed to raise
academic standards.
Second, those high standards must apply equally to all
students, of all backgrounds.
Third, schools should be held accountable for meeting
academic standards.
Fourth, there should be high-quality assessments that are
linked to academic standards.
And, finally, all children can learn, and federal and state
governments must ensure that schools, particularly those in
neighborhoods of concentrated poverty, have the resources they
need to give all children the chance to meet those standards.
Now, by any standard, as you noted, Mr. Chairman, in your
opening remarks, Brown v. the Board of Education was the most
important Supreme Court case of the 20th century. In addition
to ending state-sponsored segregation, in Brown, the court
promised an equal education to all American children and said
of education, ``It is the very foundation of good
citizenship.''
In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably
be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity
of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has
undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made
available to all on equal terms.
Now, access to a high-quality public education is still a
fundamental right upon which all others depend, and yet 50
years later, the promise of Brown remains unfulfilled.
Inequality is rampant by almost every measure. No Child Left
Behind test scores paint a bleak picture of the achievement
gap, with virtually every state's white students passing state
exams at a significantly higher rate than low-income, minority
and language-minority students.
According to an Urban Institute study, the national
graduation rate for white students is 75 percent--which is not
high enough, I might add--but it is only 50 percent for
African-Americans, 53 percent for Latinos, and 51 percent for
Native Americans.
But the real crime here is the opportunity gap. For
example, minority students are more than twice as likely to
have inexperienced teachers. High-poverty schools have a 50
percent higher rate of low-scoring teachers.
Low-income, minority and language-minority students attend
schools with far less funding; they attend larger classes that
are more likely to be taught by out-of-subject teachers and in
worse facilities, and have fewer and older books, as well as
less access to computers, high-speed Internet, and modern
science labs.
Now, it was John F. Kennedy, who in 1961 challenged
Congress and the nation to reach the moon within 10 years. We
did it in about 8.5. What we need is the same kind of national
commitment to public education that we gave to the space race.
There are more than 100 public schools that fail to make
adequate yearly progress within a couple of miles of this
Capitol dome. We can accept no excuse for not getting to every
single one of them too, and every one like them, in every city
in America.
Declining literacy levels, changing demographics and
workplace restructuring are colliding to greatly expand
inequities in wealth, opportunity and drive Americans further
apart. Tens of millions of low-skilled adults will be competing
for jobs, not only with one another, but also with workers with
equal or better skills in low-wage foreign economies.
Over the next few decades, as older, better-educated
workers retire, they will be replaced by younger, less-educated
workers with fewer skills. If these challenges are not
adequately addressed, these forces will limit our nation's
economic potential and threaten our democratic ideals.
Now, the scope of this problem, Mr. Chairman, as I wrap up,
the scope of this problem was recently outlined in a report
issued by the Educational Testing Service last month entitled,
``America's Perfect Storm: Three Forces Changing Our Nation's
Future.'' And it detailed the confluence of three trends:
worsening educational inequities, demographic changes and the
continuing evolution of the economy. And they documented the
devastating impact that this convergence would have by 2030 if
we do not dramatically address the problem.
Obviously, money is necessary. I won't go into the details
of how we hope, in addition to a reauthorization, that adequate
appropriations are offered to No Child Left Behind to target
those districts that really have the greatest economic need.
And we can't continue to provide the least education to the
most rapidly growing segments of our society at exactly the
moment when the economy will need them most.
And what we would conclude with is the following: The
Leadership Conference believes that access to a high-quality
public education is a civil right for all children. And in the
tradition of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights
Act of 1965 and 2006, I might add, when this Congress
strengthened the Voting Rights Act, the No Child Left Behind
Act can play an important role in making that right a reality.
We look forward to working with this Congress and with
these committees as you begin tackling these important issues.
And thank you for the opportunity.
[The statement of Mr. Henderson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Wade J. Henderson, President and CEO, Leadership
Conference on Civil Rights
Good morning, I am Wade Henderson, President and CEO of the
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR), the nation's oldest,
largest, and most diverse civil and human rights coalition, with nearly
200 member organizations working to build an America as good as its
ideals.
I would like to thank Chairman Kennedy and Chairman Miller, Ranking
Members Enzi and McKeon, and all of the Members of both the House
Education and Workforce Committee and the Senate Health, Education,
Labor & Pensions Committee for the opportunity to testify at this
important joint hearing today.
The Leadership Conference is issuing a formal letter to the
committees today regarding the reauthorization of the No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB) that includes both our core principles for education
reform and policy recommendations for changes to the current law. I
would ask that it be included along with the written version of my
testimony in the hearing record.
I would like to use the remainder of my time before the committee
today, however, to make a larger point regarding the future of NCLB.
For almost a century now, the civil rights community has recognized
that the twin pillars of American democracy have been the right to vote
and securing equal educational opportunity for all Americans. In that
regard, NCLB may be one of the most important civil rights laws that
this Congress will address. For example, at its most basic level, its
Adequate Yearly Progress requirement gives parents, students, teachers,
and school administrators information on the progress of their schools,
and ultimately seeks to break the cycle of failure that has continued
to deny some children access to quality education.
We urge you to be guided by the following principles as you
consider reauthorization. First, federal policy must be designed to
raise academic standards. Second, those high standards must apply
equally to all students, of all backgrounds. Third, schools should be
held accountable for meeting academic standards. Fourth, there should
be high quality assessments that are linked to academic standards.
Finally, federal and state governments must ensure that schools,
particularly those in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty, have the
resources they need to give all children the chance to meet those
standards.
The Brown Standard
By any standard, Brown v. Board of Education was the most important
Supreme Court case of the 20th century. In Brown, the Court promised an
equal education to all American children, and said of education:
It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a
principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in
preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to
adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that
any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied
the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state
has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available
to all on equal terms. 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
Access to a high quality public education is still a fundamental
right upon which all others depend; and yet 50 years later, the promise
of Brown remains unfulfilled. Inequality is rampant by almost every
measure. NCLB's test scores paint a bleak picture of the achievement
gap, with virtually every state's white students passing state exams at
a significantly higher rate than low income and minority students.
According to an Urban Institute study, the national graduation rate for
white students is 75 percent--which is not high enough--but it is only
50 percent for African-Americans, 53 percent for Latinos, and 51
percent for Native Americans.
But the real crime is the opportunity gap. According to the
National Center for Education Statistics, minority students are more
than twice as likely to have inexperienced teachers. Research has shown
that high poverty schools have a 50 percent higher rate of low scoring
teachers. Low income and minority students attend schools with far less
funding; they attend larger classes that are more likely to be taught
by out-of-subject teachers and in worse facilities; and have fewer and
older books, as well as less access to computers, high-speed internet,
and modern science labs.
Education Reform: The New National Challenge
It was President John F. Kennedy, who in 1961 challenged Congress
and the nation to reach the moon within 10 years. We did it in about
eight and a half.
We have only one moon, and at the closest point in its orbit, it is
still more than 200,000 miles from the Capitol dome. But we got there.
There are more than 100 public schools within a couple of miles of the
Capitol dome that failed to meet their proficiency targets under NCLB.
We can accept no excuse for not getting to every single one of them,
too--and every one like them in every city in America.
What we need is the same kind of national commitment to education
that we gave to the space race. President Kennedy did not call the
nation to action just to inspire us with a lofty goal. He was motivated
by a real world challenge posed by a foreign policy threat. While we
don't have Sputnik and the Soviet Union to galvanize us into action
this time, we do have a pending social and economic crisis.
Declining literacy levels, changing demographics, and workplace
restructuring are colliding to greatly expand inequities in wealth and
opportunity and drive Americans further apart. Tens of millions of low-
skilled adults will be competing for jobs, not only with one another,
but also with workers with equal or better skills in low wage foreign
economies. Over the next few decades, as older, better educated workers
retire, they will be replaced by younger, less educated workers with
fewer skills. If these challenges are not adequately addressed, these
forces will limit our nation's economic potential and threaten our
democratic ideals.
The scope of the problem is staggering and the consequences are
only going to get worse. In a report issued last month called America's
Perfect Storm: Three Forces Changing Our Nation's Future, the
Educational Testing Service (ETS) detailed the confluence of the three
trends--worsening educational inequities, demographic changes, and the
continuing evolution of the economy--and the devastating impact they
will have by 2030 if we do not dramatically change course.
Congress has found that virtually all children can learn at high
levels. Everyone involved with education--starting this morning with
the Members of Congress and the advocates at this table and in the
seats; as well as teachers, principals, local school boards, state
boards of education, local and state elected officials, and the
President--must be held accountable for students reaching their full
educational potential. The Leadership Conference will be organizing its
coalition members and grassroots partners and employing its
communications network, including www.civilrights.org and
www.realizethedream.org, to continue beating the drum for education
reform.
Moreover, it is going to take federal, state, and local
cooperation. It is also going to take a lot of money--money measured by
the size of the job to be done, not by how much we've spent in the
past.
Almost everyone agrees that substantial additional resources are
needed and that the shortfall has grown significantly since NCLB was
passed--some say by as much as $70 billion over the last six years.
During the same six-year period, congressional budgets and
appropriations have run up an enormous national debt that our children
are going to have to pay off eventually, so those children have a
pretty good claim that we should be investing a lot more in their
education.
While the federal share of total education spending is only a down
payment, federal leadership is crucial. This Congress has the
opportunity to use the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind to
boldly attack the entrenched inequities and failures within our
educational system and try to head off ETS's perfect storm.
We cannot continue to provide the least education to the most
rapidly growing segments of society at exactly the moment when the
economy will need them the most. When 21st Century jobs require a
science education, for how long will we continue to be the land of
opportunity if we tolerate an opportunity gap where racial and economic
disparities combine to make white students more than four times as
likely as African-American and Latino students to have access to
Advanced Placement science classes?
LCCR believes that access to a high quality public education is a
civil right for all children and that in the tradition of the Civil
Rights Act 1964 and the Voting Rights Acts of both 1965 and 2006, the
No Child Left Behind Act can play an important role in making that
right a reality. We look forward to working with Congress to strengthen
the law and its implementation.
Thank you very much.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rothkopf?
STATEMENT OF ARTHUR J. ROTHKOPF, BUSINESS COALITION FOR STUDENT
ACHIEVEMENT
Mr. Rothkopf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kennedy, Chairman Miller and members, I am pleased
and honored to be here today, and I thank you for your
invitation.
I am Arthur Rothkopf, and I am senior vice president and
counselor to the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I
am also here today on behalf of the Business Coalition for
Student Achievement, which is spearheaded by the chamber and by
the business roundtable. This coalition represents over 60
business organizations and companies from sectors across our
economy.
Together, the business community is committed to achieving
the goals of No Child Left Behind. We urge the Congress to act
swiftly this year to reauthorize the law and strengthen its
core principle of accountability to ensure that all high school
students graduate academically prepared for citizenship, for
college and for the 21st-century workforce.
A recent survey that we conducted of our affiliated
chambers around the country asked them what the most important
issue was to these chambers, and the answer came back, almost
uniformly, the number-one issue is education and workforce.
The business community is deeply concerned about what is
happening, or not happening, in our school systems. That is
because it is business that hires the graduates and must rely
on the end product of these schools.
And I should say that there are good jobs going begging in
this country because the candidates do not have the knowledge
and the skills to fill those jobs, and the situation will only
get worse when 77 million baby boomers start retiring.
Two weeks ago, the chamber issued a report providing
further confirmation of the need of the business community to
be deeply concerned about the state of education in this
nation. This report was supplied to all members of Congress and
to members of these committees.
The research on this report was carried out for us at the
chamber by the Center for American Progress, headed by John
Podesta, and by Rick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute.
The study found that K through 12 public education is
failing our students. Even in Massachusetts, which has the
highest percentage of 4th and 8th graders scoring at or above
proficiency on the NAEP reading and math test, less than half
of all students met this target.
Overall, only one-third of 4th and 8th graders in the
country are proficient in reading and math, and the data is
even more disheartening, as was indicated, for academic
achievement of low-income and minority students.
Compounding the problem is that each year we have 1.2
million youngsters dropping out of high school.
In light of these statistics, you could ask the question,
is No Child Left Behind paying off? We would say in the
business community, yes. Elementary and middle school skill
achievement has improved. The latest nation's report card
coming out of the Department of Education shows improvements in
student achievement in reading and math and some lessening of
the achievement gap.
But we have a long way to go. Last month, NAEP released its
report on high schools, and it appears as though only 23
percent of our 12th graders are proficient in mathematics and
only 35 percent of high school graduates are proficient in
reading and math.
As your committees move forward, the coalition urges you to
build on the successes achieved so far by No Child Left Behind.
And we have six areas for you to focus on. Let me just touch on
them briefly.
First, all of the analyses of current state standards and
tests conclude that they are not aligned with the expectations
of college and the workforce. The law needs to include
incentives for states to raise their standards.
Second, there is a focus on No Child Left Behind on
reading, which is entirely appropriate, but we also believe
that in addition to reading, we need to add an emphasis on
science, technology, engineering and math to keep America
competitive.
Third, the most difficult thing that business leaders have
encountered is the absence of good, reliable data. No Child
Left Behind made a great start. The quality of data has
improved over the last 5 years, but data systems in many states
and districts are antiquated and need to be overhauled.
Fourth, teacher and principal effectiveness. We believe, as
the NCLB Commission does, that effectiveness ought to be the
test, not highly qualified. We need highly effective teachers
and principals.
We, the chamber, the coalition and actually the Center for
American Progress, believe that starting teacher salaries
should be raised and that increases should be based on growth
in student achievement, among other factors.
We also believe there needs to be a fair and efficient
process to remove ineffective teachers and principals.
I won't go into the final two items, but they include
strengthening and refining accountability and investing in
school improvement and encouraging innovation. The details of
that appear in my written statement, which I ask to be made a
part of the record.
Let me conclude by saying, for too long the business
community has been willing to leave education to others,
standing aside and making offers of money, support and good
will. Not anymore. This is a matter of critical national
urgency. What is at stake is nothing less than the continued
success and competitiveness of the American economy and the
continued viability of the American dream for American workers.
This concludes my oral remarks. I look forward to your
questions. And, again, thank you for inviting me to appear.
[The statement of Mr. Rothkopf follows:]
Prepared Statement of Arthur J. Rothkopf, Business Coalition for
Student Achievement
Chairman Kennedy and Chairman Miller: I am pleased and honored to
be here today. Thank you for your kind invitation.
By way of introduction, I am Arthur Rothkopf and I serve as Senior
Vice-President and Counselor to the President of the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce.
I am also testifying today on behalf of the Business Coalition for
Student Achievement (BCSA). BCSA is a coalition spearheaded by the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable. The coalition
represents over sixty business leaders from sectors across our economy.
BCSA is led by Co-Chairs Craig Barrett, Chairman of the Board of Intel;
Arthur F. Ryan, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Prudential
Financial, Inc; and Edward B. Rust Jr., Chairman and CEO, State Farm
Insurance Companies.
Together, we are committed to achieving the goals of No Child Left
Behind (NCLB). We strongly urge Congress to act swiftly this year to
reauthorize this law and strengthen its core principle of
accountability to ensure that all high school students graduate
academically prepared for college, citizenship and the 21st century
workplace.
The United States in the 21st century faces unprecedented economic
and social challenges: global competition, the retirement of 77 million
baby boomers, and the fact that 90% of the fastest-growing jobs will
require some postsecondary education. It is for these very reasons that
a recent survey of our affiliated chambers from around the country
rated workforce and education reform as their number one priority. The
business community is very much in tune with what is happening--or not
happening--in our school systems. That's because it is business that
hires the graduates and must rely on the end product of those schools.
No one is more in touch with both the successes and the failures.
Last week the U.S. Chamber issued a report providing further
confirmation of the need for the business community to be deeply
concerned about the state of education in this nation. The research for
this report entitled, ``Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report
Card on Educational Effectiveness,'' was carried out on behalf of the
Chamber by the Center for American Progress and Frederick M. Hess of
the American Enterprise Institute. The report analyzed existing state-
by-state data related to academic as well as key business metrics such
as innovation, flexibility, and fiscal prudence. Building upon the
research in Leaders and Laggards, the U.S. Chamber and the Center for
American Progress released A Joint Platform for Education Reform, which
echoes the U.S. Chamber's proposals for a stronger education system.
These proposals include: better teaching, more innovation, better data,
and better management.
The study found that K-12 public education has been an abysmal
failure. This poor performance threatens the future of our children and
America's competitive position in the world. This is made clear when
looking at the academic achievement of fourth and eighth grade students
based upon the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
Even in Massachusetts, which has the highest percentage of 4th and
8th graders scoring at or above the proficient level on NAEP reading
and math--less than half of all students meet this target. Overall,
only about one-third of all 4th and 8th graders in the country are
proficient in reading and math.
The data is even more disheartening for the academic achievement of
low-income and minority students. In our report, we graded states on a
curve from A to F. Of the nine states which were awarded an ``A''--not
one had an average percentage of 4th and 8th grade African Americans
above 22 percent in math and reading. The results for Hispanic students
were nearly identical.
Our report highlighted what has also been a fixture of our current
education system--an unacceptable level of student dropouts. Only about
two-thirds of all 9th graders graduate from high school within four
years and only about half of minority students.
Even among those students who do manage to graduate and move on to
college, at least 40% have to take at least one remedial course when
they get there, indicating that high schools are not adequately
preparing students for the rigor of a postsecondary education
curriculum. Businesses report the same dismal results for young people
that they hire.
This is directly related to another significant finding of our
report--the lack of rigor in state academic standards. States were
graded on the quality, rigor, and specificity of their academic
standards. Only four states were given an A for their standards.
Furthermore, only eight states have aligned their academic standards
and graduation requirements with college and workplace expectations.
In light of these statistics, ``is NCLB really paying off?'' The
answer is ``yes.''
As abysmal as this data is, it represents improvement for
elementary and middle school students from where this nation was prior
to enactment of NCLB. Specifically, according to the US Department of
Education, the July 2005 long-term Nation's Report Card (NAEP) results
showed national student achievement in reading and math at all-time
highs and the achievement gap closing.
For America's nine-year-olds in reading, more progress was
made in five years than in the previous 28 combined.
America's nine-year-olds posted the best scores in reading
(since 1971) and math (since 1973) in the history of the report.
America's 13-year-olds earned the highest math scores the test ever
recorded.
Reading and math scores for African American and Hispanic
nine-year-olds reached an all-time high.
Math scores for African American and Hispanic 13-year-olds
reached an all-time high.
Achievement gaps in reading and math between white and
African American nine-year-olds and between white and Hispanic nine-
year-olds are at an all-time low.
The 2005 Nation's Report Card on state-level data included similar
glimmers of hope. For example, in the State of Georgia, in 2004-05,
more than 70 percent of the state's limited English proficient (LEP)
students scored proficient or better in reading, up 23 percent from
2002. Among third-graders with disabilities in Georgia, 81 percent
scored proficient or better in reading, up 26 percentage points.
But to be clear, our nation has a long way to go, particularly for
our high school students--an area which receives little attention under
NCLB. The 12th grade NAEP results released last month demonstrates just
how far we must travel.
The report found that----
Only 23% of 12th graders are proficient in mathematics.
27% of 12th-grade students lack even basic high school
reading skills, up from 20 percent in 1992.
Only 35% of students are proficient in reading, a drop
from 40 percent in 1992.
What is the solution to address these issues? Some have suggested
it's time to turn back the clock and go back to a time before NCLB when
schools, districts and states were not held accountable for reducing
education achievement gaps.
NCLB opponents point to a vast array of rationalizations for their
claims.
Some groups have argued that NCLB takes away local
control. They fail to highlight that under NCLB each state determines
its own system of accountability, its own standards and assessments, as
well as what it means for students in the state to be ``proficient.''
Similarly, they fail to point out that each state determines how
schools in the state will use the federal dollars to improve
education--indeed a vast majority of funds are used solely to hire
teachers. Only when schools are identified for improvement do they
begin to have increased restrictions on the expenditure of a portion of
their federal funding.
Some groups claim that NCLB is overly punitive to school
systems in which students are not reaching achievement expectations.
Let's not lose sight of the focus of this Act. NCLB's focus is on
helping students succeed--it is not about supporting a bureaucracy at
the expense of helping students learn. NCLB requires states and
districts to support underperforming schools--that is, schools where
students have been struggling oftentimes for generations--by requiring
schools to develop plans on how to help struggling students and by
providing tutoring and public school choice options to students in
struggling schools.
Some groups demand that NCLB accountability requirements
be suspended in anticipation of ``full funding'' To focus only on
funding misses the point. The U.S. has the highest spending per student
of any nation in the world. The reason NCLB is working to increase
student achievement is that the Act focuses on transparency,
accountability and results.
The question should be not how much more funding we need
to improve student achievement, but how well is the money currently
available being currently spent. In the Chamber's Report Card, our data
showed that money alone does not guarantee academic success, but rather
how wisely those dollars are spent.
There has been a disconcerting lack of attention to ensuring that
education dollars are delivering real value. Some states are spending
less money and achieving real results. Despite steps to increase per
pupil spending, decrease student-teacher ratios, and recruit a better-
prepared teaching force, student test scores have remained stubbornly
flat over the past 35 years. By international standards, the U.S.
spends far more than other nations on education--and has smaller class
sizes--yet receives far less value in terms of educational outcomes.
The bottom line is that these and other excuses should be fully
examined. The burden of any of the NCLB requirements must be weighed
against the alternative--that is, turning our back on the millions of
students who are benefiting from its provisions.
The Business Coalition for Student Achievement remains committed to
the tenets of the No Child Left Behind Act. As your Committees move
forward with reauthorization, the Coalition strongly urges you to build
upon the successes of NCLB, particularly in the following areas:
1. FOCUS ON COLLEGE AND WORKPLACE READINESS.--We know that
educators are finding it difficult to help students reach today's
standards. However, all of the analyses of current State standards and
tests conclude that they are not aligned with the expectations of
college and the workplace. The law needs to include incentives for
States to raise their standards and avoid lowering them.
2. EMPHASIZE SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING AND MATH.--NCLB
includes a major focus on reading, which is appropriate. As we move
forward, the law needs to continue to make early reading a priority
while also adding an emphasis on science, technology, engineering and
math.
3. ENHANCE DATA-DRIVEN DECISION MAKING.--Perhaps the most difficult
thing that business leaders have encountered in our efforts to help
improve education has been the absence of good, reliable data. It's
impossible to imagine running a company without the use of valid data
to inform decisions. The quality of the data has improved over the past
five years, but the data systems in many States and districts are
antiquated and need to be overhauled.
4. INCREASE TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL EFFECTIVENESS.--One of the areas
where the current law did not accomplish its objectives has been in
making sure that all students are taught by highly qualified teachers.
The Coalition believes that the law needs to expand its focus to
effectiveness rather than just compliance to ensure that our teachers
are not only ``highly qualified'' but also ``highly effective.''
5. STRENGTHEN AND REFINE ACCOUNTABILITY.--The law should provide
guidance on ways that States can differentiate among districts and
schools that are close to or far from making AYP, and ensure that
resources for improvement focus on those with the highest
concentrations of underperforming students. We also support provisions
that would permit States to use rigorous measures of year-to-year
growth in student academic achievement and other methods verified by
the Secretary that are consistent with the goal of all students
reaching proficiency in reading, math and science.
6. INVEST IN SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT AND ENCOURAGE INNOVATION.--Our last
point brings us full circle to the rationale for the law. It is not to
punish schools. It is not to make educators look bad. It is about
improving schools. It is about improving student achievement. It is
about investing in what research has proven works while also
discovering new models and innovations. We want to increase the
capacity of States and other entities to better assist schools that
need help making AYP; target funding, assistance and distribution of
effective educators to high-need schools; and continue support for
innovative models, such as charter schools, diverse providers and
techniques that effectively integrate technology into appropriate
aspects of teaching, learning and management.
For too long the business community has been willing to leave
education to the politicians and the educators--standing aside and
contenting itself with offers of money, support, and goodwill.
Not anymore. This is a matter of critical national urgency. What's
at stake is nothing less than the continued success and competitiveness
of the American economy--and the continued viability of the American
Dream.
America needs a world-class education system. Students deserve it,
parents demand it, and businesses require it to compete and win in the
global economy.
This concludes my prepared written testimony. I look forward to
discussing my comments in more detail during the question and answer
period, but before that, I would again like to thank the two Committees
for inviting me here today.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much.
Mr. Casserly?
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL CASSERLY, COUNCIL OF THE GREAT CITY
SCHOOLS
Mr. Casserly. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning. My name is Mike Casserly. I am the executive
director of the Council of the Great City Schools. I want to
thank you very much for the opportunity to testify this
morning.
As you may remember, the Council of the Great City Schools
supported No Child Left Behind when it was heading to the
floors of the House and Senate for final passage in December of
2001. We were the only national education organization to do
so, but our members wanted to be on record in support of
raising student achievement, closing achievement gaps and being
accountable for results.
We think that the law has been helpful to us on a number of
fronts. It has continued and strengthened the standards
movement. It has spurred the use of regular assessments. It has
elevated the priority of reading and math instruction. It is
introduced accountability into education, and it has
underscored the role of highly qualified teachers.
The council has followed through on its support of the law
by providing extensive technical assistance on its
implementation. We have published our annual state test scores,
we initiated trial urban district assessment of NAEP, we are
conducting research on the common reforms amongst the fastest
improving urban school districts in the country, and we have
been providing extensive technical assistance to our members on
how to raise student achievement.
We also, however, backed No Child Left Behind knowing that
it had numerous challenges. Multiple requirements and many
poorly calibrated provisions. We see many of the problems with
the law that many of the law's toughest critics see. We see
insufficient focus on good instructional practice and too much
test prep. We see an overemphasis on compliance with non-
instructional requirements.
We see large amounts of money diverted into supplemental
services that appear to show limited effects. We see annually
cascading sanctions that have schools changing strategies
before anything has had time to work. And we see precious
little technical assistance on how to meet the legislation's
grand intent.
In general, it is clear to us that a school can be in full
compliance with NCLB and not be raising student achievement.
Conversely, it is possible to raise student achievement
substantially and not be in compliance with the law's
requirements. Nonetheless, the nation's major urban school
systems have seen steady academic gains over the last several
years, and our academic improvements now outpace those at the
national and state levels on both state tests and the NAEP.
Still, we note that our performance as urban school
districts is below state and nation averages, and our
achievement gaps remain wide, although not much wider than the
nation's, suggesting a national problem, not just an urban one.
These gaps are not inevitable, however. They can be closed,
and the research is reasonably clear about how to do it. The
key is good teaching, solid professional development and
effective instructional programming. Urban school districts
that are showing strong gains use this research and the
accumulating wisdom about what it takes to improve urban
schools.
We have borrowed from these lessons that these faster
improving urban school districts have made to inform the
recommendations that we are making to Congress about the
reauthorization.
First, we are proposing national standards in reading, math
and science to close up some of the inequities feeding the gaps
that our 50-state system now exacerbates. We would require that
states tether their tests to those standards with comparable
definitions of proficiency. We also think that proposals to
allow growth models make more sense when growth means the same
thing state to state.
Second, we would reorient the legislation toward
instruction and achievement by replacing the current system of
annually cascading sanctions, school improvement I, school
improvement II and corrective action, with a single 3-year
intervention and improvement period. There is a chart in the
back of our testimony that illustrates how that would work.
During this 3-year period, which would be free of
sanctions, we would require schools that had not made AYP on
the same subgroups and subjects to devote an amount equal to 30
percent of the Title 1 allocations to instructional strategies
that have proven successful. These would include professional
development for principals and teachers, instructional
interventions, extended time programs, quarterly assessments,
instructional coaching, differentiated instruction and
effective programming.
There are multiple ways to use these strategies well, there
are also ways to do them poorly, but I would rather spend
scarce resources on the kinds of activities that hold greater
promise for raising student achievement than spending them on
many of the procedural requirements that are now in the law.
However, we would continue to allow students to transfer to
higher-performing district schools or to select a district
supplemental service provider, but we would permit districts to
be their own providers.
We would also follow this 3-year instructional period with
one of two kinds of sanctions depending on how persistent and
pervasive the school's failure had been.
Third, we would require the states to start building data
systems that would eventually link student achievement with
individual classrooms and teachers.
Fourth, we would limit the disproportionate assignment and
hiring of underqualified teachers in the lowest-performing
schools.
Finally, we would retain the grade 3 to 8 testing system,
but we would allow a 3-year window for English-language-
learners before building them into the accountability system.
Ultimately, M. Chairman, our goal is to offer practical
solutions, not loopholes, to problems that have plagued No
Child Left Behind since its beginning, to retain the purposes
and framework of the law but to shift it toward raising student
achievement and closing gaps and make the law more workable.
We will have a full package of recommendations for the
committee next week.
Thank you, and I would be happy to answer questions.
[The statement of Mr. Casserly follows:]
------
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much.
Mr. McElroy?
STATEMENT OF ED MCELROY, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS
Mr. McElroy. Well, good morning, Chairman Miller, Chairman
Kennedy, members of both committees.
The symbolism of a joint committee on this issue is not
lost on us, and I want you to know I appreciate the importance
that you attach to this critical issue.
I am here today on behalf of more than 1.3 million members
and 3,500 local unions of the American Federation of Teachers,
here to discuss what they care most about and that is improving
teaching and learning in our public schools. That means giving
No Child Left Behind proper funding, and it also means making
appropriate and necessary changes during its reauthorization.
The AFT has been preparing for reauthorization by gathering
feedback at town hall meetings with our members, and we also
established a task force proposed by teacher leaders who
studied the effects of this law and the ways to get it right.
We developed a set of recommendations, which we have
submitted for the record. You will see that they reflect the
real experiences of the educators throughout the United States,
the people who actually do the work that we are talking about
here today.
Any discussion of No Child Left Behind should begin by
addressing the flaws of the adequate yearly progress system.
Many schools in your congressional districts and states are
making meaningful academic progress, but the current AYP system
does not capture these gains. Instead, it misidentifies, as
failing, thousands of schools that are making real progress.
Students, parents, teachers and community members know
their schools are making solid academic improvement, yet they
are told that their schools are not making the grade;
devastating and demoralizing for all of those publics.
At a recent No Child Left Behind town hall meeting with our
members in Boston, a 4th grade teacher said, ``The entire
reputation of our school hangs on one test. It is not about
balanced curriculum, enrichment or learning anymore; it is
about avoiding that failing school label.''
We want an accountability system that is fair and accurate.
That means the AYP system must give schools credit for
students' progress. The law must distinguish between schools
that need intense multiple interventions and those need only
limited help. Struggling schools must get help when they need
it, and schools that are improving should not be penalized.
On testing, our teachers report that they are required to
administer test upon test. This leads to instructional time
being replaced by testing and drill-and-kill preparation and,
importantly, a narrowing of the curriculum to those only
subjects being tested. If students are behind, they should be
provided intensive math and/or reading instruction that
integrates other content areas. What students do not need is
less time studying other important subjects.
Members also tell us that standardized assessments often
are not aligned with the curriculum that they teach. Our
recommendation is simple: State tests must be aligned with the
state standards and the curriculum used in the classroom. Makes
no sense to judge school programs or school progress by test
scores which do not test what is taught.
We are also concerned about the interventions included in
No Child Left Behind, so-called supplementary educational
services. Basically, many of them are unproven and a drain on
the schools' limited resources. These providers are not being
held accountable for results and for the way they use the tax
dollars.
In Illinois, for example, the Chicago Tribune reported that
private tutoring firms are spending just 56 cents of every NCLB
dollar to tutor children who are behind. The other 44 cents
goes to profit and overhead.
Too often SES and other NCLB sanctions are punitive,
ideological and not evidence based. Too much of that assistance
looks like punishment to students and to the school community.
We, the AFT, have a proven track record of collaborating to
turn around low-performing schools. We know that successful
school turnarounds occur when schools use dated guide
instruction, provide quality professional development, put in
place programs with a strong research base and tailor the
intervention to the needs of the school and the community.
NCLB should require that any entity providing services to
students use research-based methods, have demonstrated
effectiveness and be held accountable for those results.
At our town hall meetings, members also spoke about the
law's highly qualified teacher requirement. Many teachers met
the requirement from day one, many have fulfilled the
requirement since then, and it is a credit to the people who
teach in our schools. Five years later, proposals are being put
forth that would require teachers to jump through an additional
hoop to prove they are worthy of teaching our nation's
children.
NCLB, in its current form, is burdensome and demoralizing
to teachers, and yet they continue to adhere to changing
requirements so they can continue to teach. It is unacceptable
to pose on them another unfair accountability measure.
I want to wrap up by saying, good teachers are central to
good education, but there are other factors that are essential
as well. Just to give you one example, consider how the
physical condition of our school buildings affects education.
We addressed that topic and I will ask to make part of the
record this document that deals with building minds, minding
buildings, talking about how those conditions affect our
schools.
We championed the goals long ago of raising academic
standards for all and closing the achievement gap. We look
forward to working with you on the reauthorization of this
legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Mr. McElroy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Edward J. McElroy, President, American Federation
of Teachers
Thank you for this opportunity to testify before the education
committees of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate. My name
is Edward J. McElroy, and I am the president of the American Federation
of Teachers (AFT). On behalf of the more than 1.3 million members of
the AFT, I am here today to tell you that the number-one concern of AFT
members is how to strengthen and improve teaching and learning in our
public schools. We believe that an important part of accomplishing this
is to ensure that appropriate changes are made to the No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB) during its reauthorization.
The AFT has been preparing for the reauthorization of NCLB by
gathering feedback from our members on the impact of this law in their
classrooms and their schools. We established an NCLB task force
composed of our teacher leaders from across the country to study the
effects of this law and to develop recommendations to revise NCLB. The
other AFT officers and I have held a series of town hall meetings with
our teacher and paraprofessional members nationwide to discuss how NCLB
has affected teaching and learning in their classrooms.
The attached set of recommendations for the reauthorization of NCLB
is comprehensive and reflects the real experiences of educators
throughout the United States. My testimony today will focus both on key
concerns that I hear repeatedly about the impact of NCLB and on our
recommendations for addressing these concerns.
No discussion of NCLB can begin without first addressing the flaws
of the current adequate yearly progress (AYP) system. Senators and
representatives, many schools in your congressional districts and
states are making meaningful academic progress with students, but the
current AYP system does not capture these gains. Instead, it
misidentifies as failing thousands of schools that are making real
progress. It's demoralizing for students, parents, teachers and
communities when they know that their schools are making solid academic
progress, yet still see them listed in the local paper as ``not making
the grade.''
At one recent town hall meeting on NCLB convened by the AFT, the
comments of a fourth-grade teacher from Boston reflected this
demoralization: ``The entire reputation of our school hangs on one
test,'' she said. ``It's not about balanced curriculum, enrichment or
learning anymore. It's all about avoiding that 'failing school'
label.''
We welcomed the U.S. Department of Education's pilot program, which
allowed a small number of states to experiment with growth models as a
way to make AYP. Unfortunately, we believe that the department's
definition of growth is too narrow. States should be permitted to
submit and implement a variety of proposals that allow those schools
serving students who are the furthest behind to receive credit for
their academic progress.
The AFT wants an accountability system that is fair and accurate--
one which ensures that no group of students is ignored. A sound
accountability system must serve another important purpose: It should
distinguish between schools that need intense and multiple
interventions and those that need only limited help. This will ensure
that struggling schools get help when they need it and schools that are
improving will not be unfairly penalized.
Educators also tell us they are required to administer test upon
test upon test, including school, district and state tests. This
layering of tests leads to an excessive amount of what should be
instructional time being diverted instead to testing and drill-and-kill
preparation, which results in a narrowing of the curriculum to only
those subjects being tested. Students should have science, social
studies, the arts, history--and recess. If students are very far
behind, they should be provided opportunities for additional intensive
math or reading instruction that is integrated with other content
areas, rather than stealing time from these subjects.
Another thing we are hearing from our members and confirmed in a
July 2006 AFT report titled ``Smart Testing'' is that the standardized
assessments teachers give to students often are not aligned with the
curriculum they teach all year. This is not the teachers' fault. Our
report revealed that only 11 states had assessments fully aligned with
their standards. Our recommendation is simple: State tests must be
aligned with the state standards and the curriculum being used in
classrooms. If schools are going to be judged on the basis of test
scores, the tests should measure what teachers are being asked to
teach.
We also hear from our members that schools which are struggling
academically don't get the kind of help they need and don't get the
help when they need it. Frankly, NCLB's choice and supplemental
educational services requirements are unproven interventions, and they
drain resources at the very time these schools need them if they are to
improve. And under the current system, these private entities are not
being held accountable for student achievement. We know that schools
with difficult teaching and learning conditions need intensive and
ongoing support. Educators tell me that help only arrives after their
schools are identified as not making AYP for a number of years. And
then that ``help'' is often in the form of unproven reforms like state
takeovers of schools or private management interventions that don't
connect to what is happening in classrooms. Any entity that provides
services to students must use research-based methods, have a proven
record of effectiveness and be held accountable for results.
The AFT has a proven track record of collaborating to turn around
truly low-performing schools. From our work in places like the former
Chancellor's District in New York City, the Pilot Schools in Boston,
Miami-Dade's Zone Schools and the ABC Unified District in Southern
California, we can share strategies that we know really work. First,
the ``assistance'' should not punish students and their schools; it
should help them. Too many NCLB sanctions are punitive, ideological,
not logically sequential, and neither research- nor evidence-based.
Second, interventions should reflect each school's unique challenges.
One or more of the following interventions have increased student
achievement in places where some had thought persistent low achievement
to be intractable:
Immediate, intensive reading instruction based on
diagnostic tests beginning in prekindergarten and/or kindergarten;
Intensive reading and math instruction and enrichment
programs;
A rich and sequenced curriculum for all students;
Quality assessments that are aligned to the curriculum;
Extended school day and summer programs for students who
need extra academic help;
Reduced class size so that teachers can individualize
instruction and meet student learning goals;
Early childhood education programs;
Research-based professional development; and
Enhanced induction and mentoring programs.
Finally, I want to discuss NCLB's requirements for teachers. When
NCLB was enacted in 2002, it mandated the ``highly qualified teacher
requirements'' for the first time. Five years after the law's
enactment, more than 90 percent of teachers have met their
requirements. This is a tremendous success, and the teachers, along
with the institutions that support them, deserve to be commended. They
were told what they needed to do, and because they value their jobs and
love teaching children, they met the mandated requirements. Let me
remind you that when Congress debated enacting the highly qualified
teacher requirements, they were heralded as the way to ensure that all
students received a quality education. Five years later, we are hearing
proposals that would require teachers to jump through an additional
hoop to prove they are worthy of teaching our nation's children. Let me
be clear: NCLB in its current form is burdensome and demoralizing to
teachers, and yet they continue to teach and continue to adhere to
requirements that allow them to teach because they have chosen the
teaching of children as a career. But it is unacceptable to ask them to
meet yet another unproven federal requirement.
Teachers want to be effective. And schools must be places where
teachers feel they can be effective. We ask too many teachers to teach
and students to learn in conditions that frankly are shameful--in
dilapidated school buildings, without the basic materials they need,
and in unsafe conditions that are hardly conducive to teaching and
learning.
The AFT believes that NCLB's stated goal of closing the achievement
gap cannot be fulfilled without improving conditions in schools.
Districts should be held responsible and accountable for ensuring
adequate facilities, a safe and orderly school environment, and the
instructional supports necessary to help students succeed.
Additionally, federal, state and local resources must be marshaled to
provide competitive compensation and other incentives to attract well-
qualified teachers to low-performing schools--and keep them there.
Finally, meaningful professional development and strong instructional
leadership are essential to meeting the goals of NCLB.
Long before NCLB became law, the AFT championed high academic
standards, disaggregation of data so that we can close the achievement
gap, a qualified teacher and well-trained paraprofessional in every
classroom, and instructional supports for struggling students and the
public schools they attend. The No Child Left Behind Act is only the
latest iteration of the federal commitment to our nation's students.
The AFT looks forward to working with Congress to strengthen this
commitment as NCLB is reauthorized.
Thank you again for the chance to share teachers' perspectives on
the impact of NCLB in our nation's classrooms.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much.
Mr. Weaver?
STATEMENT OF REG WEAVER, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
Mr. Weaver. Good morning, Chairman Kennedy, Chairman Miller
and members of the committee. I am honored here to be here
representing 3.2 million members of the National Education
Association, and we believe the ESEA reauthorization presents
us all with a unique opportunity to have a renewed national
discussion about public education.
And we hope that this unusual joint hearing is a signal
that you are willing to engage in a larger conversation about
what it will truly take to achieve what should be our
collective mission as a society, that a great public school is
a basic right, not a luxury, but a basic right for every child
in America.
And I would like to focus my remarks today on the big
picture: What do we expect from public education, and how do we
fashion our laws to achieve these goals?
As in 1965, when ESEA was first passed, the federal
government must step up to ensure that all children, no matter
where they live, no matter what their family circumstances,
will receive the world-class public education that they
deserve. That is the American dream, and that should be our
focus as we approach this next reauthorization, striving to
build a public education system infused with innovation and
opportunity for all.
Yet, NEA members are the first to acknowledge that our
public schools face many challenges. We have too many children
on the other side of achievement, skills and opportunity gaps.
Too many of our neediest students are still being taught by
uncertified and unprepared teachers.
We have unacceptable gaps in access to after-school
programs and extended learning time programs, gaps from
preventing students from accessing a rich and broad curriculum
and significant infrastructure and school environment gaps that
hamper learning. And even more troubling is the dropout crisis
in America, with far too many low-income and minority students
losing hope and seeing no way to bridge the gap.
These gaps are intolerable, they contradict everything that
this nation stands for, and they impede our future success.
Let's commit ourselves to a richer accountability system, with
shared responsibility by stakeholders at all levels.
Accountability should never be about assigning blame; it should
be about improving student learning and identifying and
addressing and ultimately eliminating the gaps.
To achieve this, we must improve methods of assessing
student learning. We should employ multiple measures at
assessing both individual student learning and overall school
effectiveness in improving student learning. States should be
permitted to design richer, more accurate systems based on a
wide variety of factors, including growth models, that should
be weighed in making determinations about whether or not a
school is high-performing.
What about schools having 21st-century curriculums? Fund
grants to states to develop 21st-century content and authentic
assessments that measure 21st-century skills and knowledge.
Reform secondary schools so that they encourage students to
attend college and provide coursework to reduce dramatically
the need for remediation in college. Adopt a federal graduation
for all proposals, including grants to states that agree to
eliminate the concept of dropping out of school or that raise
the compulsory attendance age.
Congress should also think broadly about how to ensure
quality educators in every classroom. Reward states that set a
reasonable minimum starting salary for teachers and a living
wage for support professionals working in school districts that
accept federal funds. NEA recommends that no teacher in America
should make less than $40,000, and no public school worker
should make less than $25,000 or a living wage.
Fund grants to help teachers in high-poverty schools pay
the fees and assess professional development supports to become
national board certified teachers. Consider other financial
incentives to attract and retain quality teachers in hard-to-
staff schools, including financial bonuses, college student
loan forgiveness and housing subsidies. Restore a separate
funding stream to help states reduce class sizes to no more
than 15 students and awarding grants to states that conduct
surveys of teaching and learning conditions and agree to
address problem areas that are revealed by these surveys.
My testimony today has focused primarily on the big
picture, the ideals and principles that should guide debate on
the federal role in education and frame the context for ESEA
reauthorization. If, however, Congress should approach
reauthorization by looking to make minor adjustments to the law
rather than consider broader policy changes, I have included in
my written statement 10 specific changes to the law that are of
utmost concern to the NEA.
I also encourage members of the committee to look at NEA's
positive agenda for the ESEA reauthorization, attached as an
appendix to my written statement. The positive agenda reflects
the fact that while ESEA's No Child Left Behind has laudable
goals--closing the achievement gaps, raising student
achievement for all--its overly prescriptive and punitive
accountability provisions have failed to move our nation closer
to those goals. It has had many unintended consequences, such
as narrowing the curriculum that has actually moved us away
from those goals.
We now have an opportunity through this reauthorization to
make those goals and more a reality.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Weaver follows:]
Prepared Statement of Reg Weaver, President, the National Education
Association
Chairman Kennedy, Chairman Miller, and Members of the Committees:
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today on these very
important issues. I am honored to be able to represent the views of the
3.2 million members of the National Education Association at this joint
hearing.
NEA is the largest professional association in the country,
representing public school educators--teachers and education support
professionals, higher education faculty, educators teaching in
Department of Defense schools, students in colleges of teacher
education, and retired educators across the country. While our
membership is diverse, we have a common mission and values based on our
belief that a great public school is not a luxury, but a basic right
for every child.
Our members go into education for two reasons--because they love
children and they appreciate the importance of education in our
society. We want all students to succeed. Our members show up at school
every day to nurture children, to bring out their full potential, to be
anchors in children's lives, and to help prepare them for the 21st
century world that awaits them. It is their passion and dedication that
informs and guides NEA's work as we advocate for sound public policy
that will help our members achieve their goals.
I am delighted that your committees are interested in a larger
discussion about the role of accountability in our public schools and
what we believe our public schools ought to provide and accomplish in
our society. NEA and our members view reauthorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as an opportunity for a renewed
national discussion about public education. You, as our elected
officials, have an opportunity to lift up this dialogue, to be bold, to
embrace not only the call for equity in American education, but the
demand for innovation as well. We hope that this debate will ultimately
unite the nation as we strive to fulfill the promise of public
education to prepare every student for success in a diverse, inter-
dependent world.
A meaningful and productive debate must begin with a look
backwards--at the origins of federal involvement in education. We can
then look forward in an open dialogue about the impact of our changing
work on that federal role. As you know, the federal role in education
was established during the Presidency of Lyndon Baines Johnson, when
Congress passed President Johnson's comprehensive package of
legislation including Head Start, the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, the Higher Education Act of 1965, and the Adult
Education Act of 1966. These proposals--part of President Johnson's
``War on Poverty''--were vehicles through which the federal government
sought to address inequities in access, opportunities, and quality of
public education for poor and minority communities who lacked the power
to equalize resources flowing to their communities and schools.
Earlier this month, the House of Representatives passed bipartisan
legislation to name the United States Department of Education
headquarters building here in Washington, DC the Lyndon Baines Johnson
building. Passage of that bill serves as an important reminder of the
volatile and unstable environment facing our nation in 1965. It was in
this climate that Congress passed the first ESEA, to address the
devastating impact of poverty on a child's educational opportunities
and to ensure that every child, no matter where he or she lived, would
have the same opportunities to realize the American dream.
Today, our nation is once again facing volatile times. We are
struggling with how to resolve international conflicts, to secure our
competitiveness in the world's economy, to ensure that every child will
receive the world-class public education that he or she deserves, and
to provide all children with the tools and resources necessary to be
active, engaged, successful citizens of our democracy.
It is within this context that I would like to offer our views on
the principles we believe essential and the direction we believe the
federal government should move in with the reauthorization of No Child
Left Behind.
What Do We Want From Public Education and What Role Should the Federal
Government Play in Achieving These Goals?
Public education is the gateway to opportunity. All students have
the human and civil right to a quality public education and a great
public school that develops their potential, independence, and
character. Public education is vital to building respect for the worth,
dignity, and equality of every individual in our diverse society and is
the cornerstone of our republic. Public education provides individuals
with the skills to be involved, informed, and engaged in our
representative democracy.
We believe that the expertise and judgment of education
professionals are critical to student success. Partnerships with
parents, families, communities, and other stakeholders are also
essential to quality public education and student success. Individuals
are strengthened when they work together for the common good. As
education professionals, we improve both our professional status and
the quality of public education when we unite and advocate
collectively. We maintain the highest professional standards, and we
expect the status, compensation, and respect due all professionals.
Obviously, the federal government cannot ensure all of these things
alone. However, we believe that it should--at a minimum--address
disparities impacting the quality of education our children receive and
the resulting disparities in outcomes.
How Should We Use Accountability Systems to Remedy Educational
Disparities?
If we agree that public education serves multiple purposes, then we
know there must be a richer accountability system with shared
responsibility by stakeholders at all levels for appropriate school
accountability. Such an accountability system must marry not only
accountability for achievement and learning by students, but also
shared accountability to remedy other gaps in our education system and
flaws in the current accountability model.
Opportunity Gaps
Before I address achievement and skills gaps, I would like to take
a moment to discuss the opportunity gaps that hinder so many of our
nation's children. We believe that policy makers at all levels should
fulfill their collective responsibility to remedy these gaps.
Too many of our neediest students are taught by uncertified and
under-prepared teachers. At NEA, we are as troubled by that phenomenon
as these committees have been. We believe that knowledge of content and
demonstrated skills in instructional methodology are critically
important in ensuring that all students receive the kind of instruction
they deserve. Improving working conditions and student learning
conditions is another vital element to attract and retain qualified
teachers to hard-to-staff schools.
Other troubling gaps include access to after school programs and
extended learning time programs and curriculum gaps preventing students
from accessing a rich and broad curriculum. For example, many poor and
minority communities as well as many rural and urban schools do not
have access to arts, advanced placement, or physical education courses,
nor do they have access to innovative curricula such as information
literacy, environmental education, and financial literacy.
We also are concerned about significant infrastructure and school
environment gaps that hamper learning. Students clearly cannot learn in
buildings with leaky roofs or in classrooms in which one cannot turn on
a computer and the lights without blowing a fuse. I agree with Bill
Gates that our schools shouldn't look like they did in the 1950s. For
example, science labs should not only have Bunsen burners, they should
have technology to run experiment simulations. Yet, too many of our
schools do look the same as they did 50 years ago because President
Dwight Eisenhower was the last President to make a major investment in
school infrastructure--$1 billion for school facilities.
Achievement and Skills Gaps
Now, let me turn to the subject of achievement and skills gaps.
They exist, they are intolerable, and they impede our future success as
a nation. That is why I have made closing achievement and skill gaps a
top priority for the NEA. We have dedicated millions of dollars to this
effort and will continue to do so. I have included in this testimony
just a few examples of the work we are doing in this area (attached as
Appendix I).
While one of the primary purposes and goals of NCLB is to close
achievement gaps, I do not believe that has been the outcome. The
respected Civil Rights Project at Harvard, in a June 2006 report, found
that ``federal accountability rules have little to no impact on racial
and poverty gaps. The NCLB Act ends up leaving many minority and poor
students, even with additional educational support, far behind with
little opportunity to meet the 2014 target.''
An accountability system designed to raise student achievement and
close achievement gaps must include the following elements:
Improved methods to assess student learning, including improving
the quality of assessments and giving real meaning to NCLB's ``multiple
measures'' requirement
The term ``achievement gaps'' has become synonymous with
differences in scores on standardized tests between groups of students.
And, given the poor quality of tests across the country, those test
scores reflect little more than a student's ability to regurgitate
facts. If we are truly committed to preparing our children to compete
in the 21st century economy and world, we need to develop and assess a
broader set of knowledge and skills.
As NEA member John Meehan, an elementary school teacher from Alton,
Illinois, has told NEA:
``Assessments are critical to help identify the academic needs of
students, but not all students test well. Many are stressed to the
point of simply giving up and not trying. Accountability is important,
yet giving a test is just one method of measuring student learning and
growth. I've seen so many good students who are learning and growing
academically yet who do not test well. I was one of those students. To
this day, I don't take tests well, yet I'm able to learn. We need to
help students learn, not just teach them to take tests.''
NEA has been engaged for the last four or five years in a
collaborative effort with businesses and other education groups to
attempt to define ``21st century skills.'' The Partnership for 21st
Century Skills has issued several reports\1\ along these lines as well
as a set of principles for ESEA reauthorization (attached as Appendix
II). These principles state in part: ``Standardized achievement
assessments alone do not generate evidence of the skill sets that the
business and education communities believe are necessary to ensure
success in the 21st century.''
We believe the U. S. Department of Education under the previous
Secretary made a grave error in allowing states simply to ``augment''
norm-referenced standardized tests with a few additional test items
aligned with the state content standards. In practice, this means that
the tests do not measure higher order thinking, analytical problem-
solving, or synthesis skills--the very skills businesses want and need
from the workforce. Thus, the early decision to put test administration
ahead of an examination of desirable content and skills has had a
terrible impact on the current accountability framework.
We believe the NCLB ``multiple measures'' language has two distinct
meanings, and that both are necessary in an accountability framework.
First, the term ``multiple measures'' means multiple indicators of
student learning. The research is clear that results of one math test
and one reading test are insufficient to determine a child's
achievement and skill levels. Therefore, we must also employ multiple
methods to determine what a student knows and can demonstrate.
We should employ multiple measures in assessing both individual
student learning and overall school effectiveness in improving student
learning. For example, we believe a richer more accurate system that a
state should be permitted to design could include statewide assessment
results at 50 percent, high school graduation rates at 25 percent, and
one other factor, such as local assessments, at 25 percent. Multiple
measures systems would provide the public with a more complete picture
of their local schools and their states' ability to provide great
public schools for every child.
Systemic supports for schools and individual supports and interventions
for students
An accountability system should ensure that all subgroups of
students are being served in a manner that will eliminate disparities
in educational outcomes. Yet, doing so must begin with an explicit
understanding that every child is unique and that the entire system
should be accountable for serving each individual child's needs. The
tension between approaches is no better illustrated than by comparing
NCLB accountability, which is focused on student subgroup outcomes, to
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which uses an
individualized approach to accountability through Individualized
Education Plans.
In order to close achievement and skills gaps between groups of
children, we must acknowledge the need for two simultaneous approaches:
changes in the way we provide supports and interventions to the school
and changes in the way we provide supports and interventions to
individual students who need help. NEA's Positive Agenda for the ESEA
Reauthorization (See Appendix III) sets forth a variety of supports we
hope will be included in the next reauthorization of ESEA.
What Other Roles Can the Federal Government Play in Ensuring a Great
Public School for Every Child?
Innovation and graduation for all
In addition to accountability for student learning, the federal
government should focus on less tangible, but no less important,
differences in the development of students as well-rounded individuals
prepared for life after high school graduation. Federal policy should
support innovative approaches to making students' educational
experience engaging and relevant to them. The world has changed
dramatically since enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965, and thus our public schools must also change. Technology
has transformed not only our economy, but the world's economy. A
wonderful benefit of this transformation is that all nations are more
globally interdependent.
Our schools need to reflect the world in which our children live: a
world infused with a 21st century curriculum. They need to help
students become well-rounded individuals with skills to compete in a
changing world and contribute to the rich, diverse societal fabric that
makes our country so impressive. Ultimately, an educational experience
that is more relevant to a student is going to be more engaging and
will lead to greater knowledge and skills. A rich, relevant, and
challenging experience can help address all students' needs. It can
captivate and challenge our gifted students, while also providing a
positive influence for students at risk of dropping out or engaging in
high-risk behaviors.
Consider this statement from NEA member Donna Phipps, an art
teacher in New London, Iowa:
``I have been an art teacher in three different school districts in
the last nine years. * * * Arts education and vocational education are
the heart and soul of students. They allow students to explore and
expand who they are. * * * These programs have been cut to ensure that
schools remain off the watch list and the list of schools in need of
assistance. When art and vocational programs are cut, you might as well
tell students that the innermost core of who they are no longer
matters. * * * Don't allow NCLB to stifle future artistic exploration
and invention.''
Federal policy should recognize states that have designed a plan to
create 21st Century Schools using the Framework developed by the
Partnership for 21st Century Skills and a plan to advance STEM
(Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) education. We believe the
federal government should fund these states through grants to develop
21st century content and authentic assessments that measure 21st
century skills and knowledge.
In addition, all of our schools, particularly high schools, should
encourage as many students as possible to attend college and should
provide coursework to reduce dramatically the need for remediation in
college. At the same time, we also must acknowledge the continued need
for a major investment in career and technical education programs. And,
we need to ensure that high schools take into consideration the
transition needs of all student populations, not just students with
disabilities. In other words, we need to do whatever it takes to ensure
that a student's next step after high school will be one he or she
takes with the confidence that comes from being well-prepared.
Finally, we urge Congress to adopt a ``graduation for all''
proposal that combines the work of Representative Hinojosa and Senators
Bingaman and Murray with NEA's 12-point action plan to address the
dropout crisis in America (see Appendix IV). For example, we believe
Congress should provide funding for grants to states that agree to
eliminate the concept of ``dropping out'' of school or that raise the
compulsory attendance age. We need graduation centers for 19- and 20-
year-olds and those who have dropped out of school--a concerted effort
to prevent the loss of one more child and to help those who already
have dropped out. This is not only in America's self-interest to ensure
future competitiveness, it is a moral imperative. NEA will be providing
Congress with more specific recommendations regarding the federal role
in reinventing our high schools shortly.
Quality educators in every classroom
NEA's Positive Agenda includes a number of proposals to ensure the
highest quality educators, many of which were included in Chairman
Miller and Chairman Kennedy's TEACH Act legislation last year. Beyond
these proposals, we encourage Congress to think broadly about this
important issue.
For example, we believe Congress should reward states that set a
reasonable minimum starting salary for teachers and a living wage for
support professionals working in school districts that accept federal
funds. We have asked our nation's educators to take on the most
important challenge in ensuring America's future. Yet, we have denied
these educators economic security and respect. It is time to end this
untenable situation. Congress must take a bold step and set that
minimum standard.
NEA would recommend that no teacher in America should make less
than $40,000 and no public school worker should make less than $25,000
or a living wage. According to a recent study by the National
Association of Colleges and Employers, the teaching profession has an
average national starting salary of $30,377. Meanwhile, computer
programmers start at an average of $43,635, public accounting
professionals at $44,668, and registered nurses at $45,570.\2\ Even
more shocking is that the average salary for full-time
paraprofessionals is only $26,313, with a wide salary range across job
duties. NEA has education support professional members who live in
shelters, others who work two and three jobs to get by, and others who
receive food stamps. This is an unacceptable and embarrassing way to
treat public servants who educate, nurture, and inspire our children. I
would encourage you to read their stories.\3\
We also urge Congress to advance teacher quality at the highest
poverty schools by providing $10,000 federal salary supplements to
National Board Certified Teachers. Congress also should fund grants to
help teachers in high poverty schools pay the fees and access
professional development supports to become National Board Certified
Teachers.
In addition, you should consider other financial incentives to
attract and retain quality teachers in hard-to-staff schools including
financial bonuses, college student loan forgiveness, and housing
subsidies.
Finally, we believe that the equitable distribution of highly
qualified teachers depends not just on decent wages, but more
importantly upon the teaching and learning conditions in each school.
Therefore, we strongly encourage Congress to restore a separate funding
stream to help states reduce class sizes. We hope that states accepting
such funds would be required to develop a plan to ensure a maximum
class size of 15 students in every school at every grade level. We
understand the challenges inherent in meeting this goal. However, we
believe that ensuring the greatest possible individualized attention
for each student should be as high a priority as ensuring that each
student achieves at a certain level. In fact, the two goals are
inextricably linked, as research clearly shows the positive impact of
small class size on student learning.
In addition to class size reduction, federal policy should award
grants to states that conduct surveys of teaching and learning
conditions across the state and within districts and agree to address
problem areas revealed by those surveys. North Carolina has been a
leader in this effort, and there are initiatives currently underway in
Arizona, Kansas, Mississippi, Nevada, Ohio, and South Carolina. We
would encourage you to look at the work of the Center for Teaching
Quality (www.teachingquality.org) with whom the NEA has partnered to
expand these initiatives.\4\
Specific Changes to No Child Left Behind
My testimony today has focused primarily on the big picture--the
ideals and principles that should guide debate on the federal role in
education and should frame the context for NCLB reauthorization. NEA is
not alone in highlighting those areas that need the most attention. In
fact, we have signed onto the Joint Organizational Statement on NCLB,
which currently has the support of 113 groups representing education,
civil rights, children's, disability, religious, and citizens'
organizations. The Joint Statement recommends 14 significant,
constructive corrections that are among those necessary to make the Act
fair and effective (See Appendix V). If, however, Congress should
approach reauthorization by looking to tweak the law rather than
consider broader policy changes, we would offer the following
suggestions, which are of utmost concern to NEA's members:
1. Allow states to use a ``growth model'' as part of the AYP
definition (provided that state data systems are equipped with
individual student identifiers) to track and give credit for student
growth over time.
2. Clarify the language about assessments. Tests should be used for
diagnostic purposes and educators should receive results in a timely
manner to inform instructional strategies. Overall, assessment language
should require a much more comprehensive look at the quality of
assessments for all student populations and their true alignment with
state content standards.
3. Encourage 21st century assessment that is web-based and provides
timely results useful to teachers, parents, and students. Such
assessments should be accessible to all student populations.
4. Replace current accountability labels (``in need of
improvement,'' ``corrective action,'' and ``restructuring '') with a
system that rewards success in closing achievement gaps and focuses on
helping schools.\5\ Semantics and policies should reflect the goal of
targeting help where it is needed most. Therefore, schools in need of
additional supports and interventions should be classified as: priority
schools, high priority schools, and highest priority schools.
5. Mandate multiple measures in the AYP system. Current multiple
measure language is not enforced in a way that gives schools and
districts credit for success on factors other than state standardized
assessments, including such measures as school district and school
assessments, attendance, graduation and drop-out rates, and the percent
of students who take honors, AP, IB, or other advanced courses.
6. Extend from one year to a maximum of three years the time for an
English Language Learner to master English before being tested in
English in core content areas. This change would be consistent with
research findings about the average pace for English language
acquisition. Students who become proficient in English in fewer than
three years should be tested in English. However, to expect a non-
English speaker to take a math or reading test in a second language
prior to achieving proficiency in that language sets that student up
for failure. Furthermore, students and schools should not be punished
for the failure of the system to make available native language
assessments.
7. Include students with disabilities in any accountability system,
but allow states to use grade level appropriate authentic assessment
for special education students based on their IEPs. Under IDEA '04, IEP
teams are required to ensure that IEPs are aligned with state content
standards and state achievement standards. Teams are also required to
set annual measurable objectives for students with disabilities, so
that growth in their learning is not only expected, but required.
8. Provide a separate funding stream for and target public school
choice and supplemental services to those students who are not reaching
proficiency in reading and math.
9. Improve the quality and oversight of supplemental services to
ensure they meet the same standards as public schools.
10. Close two loopholes in the highly qualified teacher definition.
NCLB itself exempts some teachers in charter schools from having to be
fully licensed or certified. The Department of Education's regulations
allow individuals going through alternate route to certification
programs to be considered highly qualified for up to three years before
completing their program. Each of these exemptions should be
eliminated.
I thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you today. I
look forward to working closely with your two committees on ESEA
reauthorization as we strive to ensure every child's basic right to a
great public school.
appendix i: nea work on closing achievement gaps
NEA's work on closing achievement gaps focuses on policy and
practice. In the policy arena, an NEA grants program funds state
affiliates' efforts to change state public policy environments to
better support members' efforts to close the gaps. We also conduct
annual policy summits on the educational status of traditionally
underserved student groups. In the practice arena, NEA offers a variety
of professional development sessions for members, and state and local
staff to help them gain the knowledge and skills required to close
achievement gaps. We also produce a number of publications on the
achievement of diverse students that serve as training and resource
documents for affiliates and members.
State Grants to Close Achievement Gaps
One of the primary goals of NEA's work in this area is to secure
state-level public policies and associated funding to close achievement
gaps. Therefore, in 2005-06, we initiated a new grants program, NEA
Grants to Close Achievement Gaps.
To date, 22 NEA state affiliates have received grants which they
are using to help close achievement gaps by: a) securing statewide
legislation; b) changing state regulations; c) modifying the scope or
content of local contracts/negotiated agreements; and/or d) changing
state affiliate policy, conducting research, building/enhancing
coalitions, or conducting member-focused activities to position the
affiliate for future statewide action to close achievement gaps. Key
policy successes using grant funds include the following:
Illinois: Passed two pieces of legislation in 2005-06 that will
enhance the skills of Illinois educators: A state-of-the-art teacher
induction program that will serve teachers throughout the state; and a
one-year, required coaching experience for new school principals.
Maine: Bargained a contract in the state's largest local, Portland
Public Schools, that provides an alternative pay scale based on a
professional development ladder and incentives for teachers to become
more skilled in meeting the needs of the diverse learners.
Missouri: Embedded language in the state's professional development
guidelines that encourages schools to create opportunities for schools
to use their examination of student work to inform teaching, increase
student achievement, and close achievement gaps.
New Mexico: Secured local contract language that requires the
ongoing bargaining of professional and instructional issues throughout
the contract year.
Nebraska: Passed a constitutional amendment that allows the use of
the interest from the school lands trust fund, and triggers private
endowment money, to pay for early childhood programs in public schools.
This implements a policy success from the 2005-06 legislative session
that established an early childhood endowment, which will now be
funded.
Ohio: Passed legislation to establish school district committees
that will develop local strategies for closing achievement gaps.
Oklahoma: Passed a state law that requires districts to focus
professional development activities on closing achievement gaps.
In addition to these state grants, NEA's foundation (The National
Foundation for the Improvement of Education) provides substantial
funding to three local affiliates (Seattle, Chattanooga, and Milwaukee)
to support their work in closing achievement gaps.
Policy Summits on Traditionally Underserved Students
NEA conducts annual educational summits on the educational status
of traditionally underserved student groups. The summits invite
practitioners, researchers, and community members to share research,
examine best practices, and develop recommendations for policy,
programs, and practice. NEA distributes summit proceedings and
recommendations widely. Summit reports that are currently available on
www.achievementgaps.org are:
A Report on the Status of Hispanics in Education:
Overcoming a History of Neglect
Status of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in
Education: Beyond the ``Model Minority'' Stereotype
The Status of American Indians and Alaska Natives in
Education
Key NEA Publications
C.A.R.E.: Strategies for Closing the Achievement Gaps, a
resource for classroom teachers and other educators, focuses on closing
the gaps by examining research on working with culturally and
linguistically diverse students. The guide looks at the research on
cultural, language, and economic differences, as well as at
unrecognized and undeveloped abilities, resilience, and effort and
motivation. Copies may be downloaded at: www.nea.org/teachexperience/
careguide.html
Closing Achievement Gaps: An Association Guide, a resource
for NEA's affiliates and leaders, provides them with research and
information, tools, ``success stories'' of state and local affiliates
engaged in the work of closing achievement gaps, and examples of
policy, programs, and practice for closing achievement gaps. Copies may
be downloaded at: www.achievementgaps.org/nea/Associationguide.pdf
Training for Leaders, Staff, and Members
NEA supports state affiliates that are developing teams of trainers
who introduce members to the research and strategies in C.A.R.E.:
Strategies for Closing the Achievement Gaps. Nineteen states currently
have teams of trainers.
NEA also provides training and support for public engagement
projects in which local educators and community stakeholders focus on
what they can do to close achievement gaps and make sure that all
students learn. In addition, NEA offers training to educators on how to
build family, school, and community partnerships to close the
achievement gaps.
appendix ii: partnershp for 21st century skills
Statement of principles
21st Century Skills and the Reauthorization of NCLB/ESEA
The Partnership believes that our organization's framework for 21st
century skills is consistent with the metrics and accountability
emphasized in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. As congress
considers reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA), of which NCLB is the current version, we offer this set of
principles to provide guidance for strengthening the Act in terms of
its approach to accountability and integrating 21st century skills for
today's students.
The Case for 21st Century Education:
The Partnership for 21St Century Skills, representing both business
and education, believes success of US education in the 21st century
depends upon student acquisition of 21st century skills because:
1. Education is changing. We can no longer claim that the US
educational results are unparalleled. Students around the world
outperform American students on assessments that measure 21st century
skills. Today's teachers need better tools to address this growing
problem.
2. Competition is changing internationally. Innovation and
creativity no longer set U.S. education apart. Innovators around the
world rival Americans in breakthroughs that fuel economic
competitiveness.
3. The workplace, jobs, and skill demands are changing. Today every
student, whether he/she plans to go directly into the workforce or on
to a 4-year college or trade school, requires 21st century skills to
succeed. We need to ensure that all students are qualified to succeed
in work and life in this new global economy.
21st century skills are the skills students need to succeed in
work, school, and life. They include:
1. Core subjects (as defined by NCLB)
2. 21st century content: global awareness; financial, economic,
business and entrepreneurial literacy; civic literacy; and health and
wellness awareness
3. Learning and thinking skills: critical thinking and problem
solving skills, communications skills, creativity and innovation
skills, collaboration skills, contextual learning skills and
information and media literacy skills
4. Information and communications technology (ICT) literacy
5. Life skills: leadership, ethics, accountability, adaptability,
personal productivity, personal responsibility, people skills, self-
direction, and social responsibility
Principles Regarding NCLB
These principles are intended to provide guidance for strengthening
NCLB's approach to accountability and integration of 21st century
skills into classrooms.
Principle 1: Standards
Standards that reflect content mastery alone do not enable
accountability and measurement of 21st century skills. And without a
comprehensive, valid system of measurement, it is impossible to
integrate these skills effectively into classroom instruction or
monitor whether students have mastered the skills necessary for success
in life and work today. The Partnership believes the Act should:
1. Include language related to the integration of 21st century
skills into state standards of the three subjects already identified by
the Act (math, reading, science.)
2. Incorporate ``21st century skills'' as part of the definition/
description of ``challenging academic content standards.''
3. Funds should be provided to states for development of robust
standards that incorporate 21st century skills into core subjects, as
well as 21st century content areas not currently covered by federal
testing.
4. States should be supported in collaborating with other states to
develop 21st century standards.
5. States should be supported if they choose to strengthen their
standards to improve their students' abilities to compete in the global
economy.
Principle 2: Assessment
An expanded approach to assessment, involving measurements that
assess 21st century skills, is necessary to ensure accountability of
schools in the 21st century. Most K-12 assessments in widespread use
today--whether they be of 21st century skills and content or of
traditional core subject areas--measure a student's knowledge of
discrete facts, not a student's ability to apply knowledge in complex
situations. Standardized achievement assessments alone do not generate
evidence of the skill sets that the business and education communities
believe are necessary to ensure success in the 21st century. The
Partnership recommends the following improvements to ESEA:
1. The assessment and accountability system should be based on
multiple measures of students' abilities that include 21st century
skills. In addition to statewide standardized assessments, such
measures could include district level assessments, local school and
classroom formative assessments, and other measures of student
knowledge.
1. Assessment of 21st century skills should be listed as an
integral part of the academic assessments in math, reading, and
science.
2. Reporting requirements should be expanded to include information
on whether the student is achieving 21st century skills.
3. Funds should be made available for pilot projects and test beds
for the use of assessments that measure 21st century skill competencies
in high school students.
4. Funds should be allocated for an international benchmarking
project that allows U.S. high school students to be compared to their
international peers in terms of competencies in 21st century skills.
Principle 3: Professional Development
Students cannot master 21st century skills unless their teachers
are well trained and supported in this type of instruction. The Act
should support professional development that prepares teachers and
principals to integrate 21st century skills into their classrooms and
schools. Specifically, the Partnership recommends that:
1. Funds should be allocated for professional development of 21st
century skills and establishment of 21st Century Skills Teaching
Academies.
2. Higher education institutions should be supported in identifying
and disseminating the best practices for teaching and assessing 21st
century skills
3. Higher education institutions should be encouraged to ensure
that all pre-service teachers graduate prepared to employ 21st century
teaching and assessment strategies in their classrooms.
Principle 4: Information and communications technology
(ICT) literacy
ICT literacy is the ability to use technology to develop 21st
century content, knowledge, and skills. Students must be able to use
technology to help them learn content and skills--so that they know how
to learn, think critically, solve problems, use information,
communicate, innovate, and collaborate. The Partnership recommends that
ESEA integrate ICT literacy in the following way:
1. Maintain and fund the Enhancing Education Through Technology
State Grant program.
2. Transition the 8th grade technology literacy requirement into an
ICT literacy requirement, so that the focus is not on technology
competency, but the ability to use technology to perform critical
thinking, problem solving, collaboration, communication and innovation
skills.
Principle 5: Content
Twenty-first century content areas like global awareness, financial
literacy, civic literacy, and health awareness are critical to student
success in communities and workplaces, yet they typically are not
emphasized in schools today. The Partnership believes the Act should:
1. Support the teaching of each of these content areas.
2. For global awareness in particular, support the teaching of
multiple languages.
Principle 6: Research & Development
Targeted, sustained investment in research and development
initiatives is required to promote 21st century skills and craft
teaching practices and assessment approaches that more closely convey
and measure what students need to excel in the 21st century. Therefore
the Partnership recommends:
1. The Act should provide support for state research and
development initiatives, within the state university system and/or
possibly others, that will identify through scientifically-based
research the best practices for teaching, attaining and measuring 21st
century skills.
Principle 7: 21st Century Skills Definition
The Partnership recognizes that the term ``21st century skills'' is
used in a variety of contexts. Therefore we recommend:
1. ESEA should contain a definition of ``21st century skills'' with
a current description of the P21 framework as described earlier in this
document.
appendix iii: esea--it's time for a change!
NEA's Positive Agenda for the ESEA Reauthorization: Executive Summary
This Executive Summary of the Positive Agenda highlights the
recommendations contained in the full report. The full report, starting
on page 8, provides the rationale and additional background for each
recommendation.
Great Public Schools Criteria
All children have a basic right to a great public school. Our
vision of what great public schools need and should provide
acknowledges that the world is changing and public education is
changing too. Meeting these Great Public Schools (GPS) criteria require
not only the continued commitment of all educators, but the concerted
efforts of policymakers at all levels of government. We believe these
criteria will:
Prepare all students for the future with 21st century
skills
Create enthusiasm for learning and engage all students in
the classroom
Close achievement gaps and raise achievement for all
students
Ensure that all educators have the resources and tools
they need to get the job done
These criteria form a basis for NEA's priorities in offering
Congress a framework for the 2007 reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The reauthorization process must
involve all stakeholders, especially educators. Their knowledge and
insights are key to developing sound policies.
Quality programs and services that meet the full range of
all children's needs so that they come to school every day ready and
able to learn.
Students must have access to programs such as public school pre-K
and kindergarten programs; afterschool enrichment and intervention
programs; nutrition, including school breakfast and lunch programs;
school-based health care and related services; counseling and mentoring
programs for students and families; safe and efficient transportation;
and safe and drug-free schools programs.
High expectations and standards with a rigorous and
comprehensive curriculum for all students.
All students should have access to a rigorous, comprehensive
education that includes critical thinking, problem solving, high level
communication and literacy skills, and a deep understanding of content.
Curriculum must be aligned with standards and assessments, and should
include more than what can be assessed on a paper and pencil multiple
choice test.
Quality conditions for teaching and lifelong learning.
Quality conditions for teaching and learning include smaller class
sizes and optimal-sized learning communities; safe, healthy, modern,
and orderly schools; up-to-date textbooks, technology, media centers,
and materials; policies that encourage collaboration and shared
decisionmaking among staff; and the providing of data in a timely
manner with staff training in the use of data for decisionmaking.
A qualified, caring, diverse, and stable workforce.
A qualified, caring, diverse, and stable workforce in our schools
requires a pool of well prepared, highly skilled candidates for all
vacancies; quality induction for new teachers with mentoring services
from trained veteran teachers; opportunities for continual improvement
and growth for all employees; working conditions in which they can be
successful; and professional compensation and benefits.
Shared responsibility for appropriate school
accountability by stakeholders at all levels.
Appropriate accountability means using results to identify policies
and programs that successfully improve student learning and to provide
positive supports, including resources for improvement and technical
assistance to schools needing help. Schools, districts, states, and the
federal government should be financially accountable to the public,
with policymakers accountable to provide the resources needed to
produce positive results. Accountability systems should be transparent
so that policies are determined and communicated in an open,
consistent, and timely manner.
Parental, family, and community involvement and
engagement.
Policies should assist and encourage parents, families, and
communities to be actively involved and engaged in their public
schools; require professional development programs for all educators to
include the skills and knowledge needed for effective parental and
community communication and engagement strategies; provide incentives
or require employers to grant a reasonable amount of leave for parents
to participate in their children's school activities.
Adequate, equitable, and sustainable funding.
School funding systems must provide adequate, equitable and
sustainable funding. Making taxes fair and eliminating inefficient and
ineffective business subsidies are essential prerequisites to achieving
adequacy, equity, and stability in school funding. ESEA programs should
be fully funded at their authorized levels.
NEA's Priorities for ESEA Reauthorization
A great public school is a basic right of every child. NEA's
priorities for the 2007 reauthorization of ESEA focus on a broad range
of policies to ensure every child access to a great public school.
The current version of ESEA--the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)--
is fundamentally flawed. It undermines existing state and school
district structures and authority, and shifts public dollars to the
private sector through supplemental educational services and takeovers
of public schools by for-profit companies.
However, its stated goals--to improve student achievement and help
close the achievement and skills gaps that exist in our country--are
important to NEA and our society. We want to retain the positive
provisions of ESEA, both those that existed prior to NCLB and those
that were added by NCLB, in the 2007 reauthorization.
Congress must shift from the current focus that labels and punishes
schools with a flawed one-size-fits-all accountability system and
severely underfunded mandates to one that includes common-sense
flexibility and supports educators in implementing programs that
improve student learning, reward success, and provide meaningful
assistance to schools most in need of help.
The following five priorities are crucial to realizing the goals of
improving student achievement, closing the achievement gaps, and
providing every child a quality teacher.
Accountability That Rewards Success and Supports Educators
to Help Students Learn
Accountability should be based upon multiple measures of
student learning and school success.
States should have the flexibility to design systems that
produce results, including deciding in which grades to administer
annual statewide tests.
States should have the flexibility to utilize growth
models and other measures of progress that assess student achievement
over time, and recognize improvement on all points of the achievement
scale.
Growth model results should be used as a guide to revise
instructional practices and curriculum, to provide individual
assistance to students, and to provide appropriate professional
development to teachers and other educators. They should not be used to
penalize schools or teachers.
Assessment systems must be appropriate, valid, and
reliable for all groups of students, including students with
disabilities and English Language Learners, and provide for common-
sense flexibility for assessing these student subgroups.
States, school districts, and schools should actively
involve teachers and other educators in the planning, development,
implementation, and refinement of standards, curriculum, assessments,
accountability, and improvement plans.
Accountability systems and the ensuing use of the results
must respect the rights of school employees under federal, state, or
local law, and collective bargaining agreements.
Accountability systems should provide support and
assistance, including financial support for improvement and technical
assistance to those schools needing help, with targeted assistance to
those schools and districts most in need of improvement.
Assessment and accountability systems should be closely
aligned with high standards and classroom curricula, provide timely
data to help improve student learning, and be comprehensive and
flexible so that they do not result in narrowing of the curricula.
A federal grant program should be created to assist
schools in ensuring all students access to a comprehensive curriculum.
A comprehensive accountability system must appropriately
apply to high schools without increasing dropout rates.
Standards and assessments must incorporate the nature of
work and civic life in the 21st century: high level thinking, learning,
and global understanding skills, and sophisticated information,
communication, and technology literacy competencies.
Schools that fail to close achievement gaps after
receiving additional financial resources, technical assistance, and
other supports should be subject to supportive interventions.
If certain elements of the current AYP system are
maintained, specific flaws must be corrected. These corrections
include: providing more than one year to implement improvement plans
before subjecting schools or districts to additional sanctions;
designating schools or districts as ``in need of improvement'' only
when the same subgroup of students fails to make AYP in the same
subject for at least two consecutive years; targeting school choice and
supplemental educational services (SES) to the specific subgroups that
fail to make AYP; providing SES prior to providing school choice; and
ensuring that SES providers serve all eligible students and utilize
only highly qualified teachers.
Smaller Class Sizes To Improve Student Achievement
Restore the Class Size Reduction program that existed
prior to NCLB to provide an optimum class size of 15 students.
Schools should receive federal support--through both
direct grants and tax subsidies--for school modernization to
accommodate smaller classes.
Quality Educators in Every Classroom and School
Provide states and school districts with the resources and
technical assistance to create an effective program of professional
development and professional accountability for all employees.
Revise the ESEA Title II Teacher Quality State Grant
program to ensure alignment of federally funded teacher professional
development with the National Staff Development Council (NSDC)
standards.
Provide federally funded salary enhancements for teachers
who achieve National Board Certification, with a smaller salary
incentive for teachers who complete this rigorous process and receive a
score, but do not achieve certification.
Create a grant program that provides additional
compensation for teachers with specific knowledge and skills who take
on new roles to assist their colleagues.
Expand opportunities for education support professionals
to broaden and enhance their skills and knowledge, including
compensation for taking additional courses or doing course work for
advanced degrees.
Provide federal grants that encourage districts and
schools to assist new teachers by pairing them with an experienced
mentor teacher in a shared classroom.
Provide financial incentives--both direct federal
subsidies and tax credits--for retention, relocation, and housing for
teachers and support professionals who work in schools identified as
``in need of improvement'' or high-poverty schools, and stay in such
schools for at least five years.
Provide hard-to-staff schools with an adequate number of
well trained administrators and support professionals, including
paraeducators, counselors, social workers, school nurses,
psychologists, and clerical support.
Provide paraeducators who are involuntarily transferred to
a Title I school and who have not met the highly qualified standard
with adequate time to meet the requirement.
Grant reciprocity for paraeducators who meet the highly
qualified standard when they move to another state or district, with
different qualifications.
Revise the definition of highly qualified teachers to
recognize state licensure/certification, eliminate nonessential
requirements that create unnecessary obstacles, and eliminate loopholes
in the scope of coverage.
Provide teachers who may not meet the highly qualified
standard by the current deadlines, due to significant implementation
problems, with assistance and additional time to meet the requirement.
Students and Schools Supported By Active and Engaged
Parents, Families, and Communities
Provide programs that encourage school-parent compacts,
signed by parents, that provide a clearly defined list of parental
expectations and opportunities.
Provide programs and resources to assist in making schools
the hub of the community.
Expand funding for the Parent Information and Resource
Centers (PIRC) program in ESEA.
Include as a requirement for professional development
programs funded through ESEA, training in the skills and knowledge
needed for effective parental and family communication and engagement
strategies.
Provide incentives or require employers to provide parents
a reasonable amount of leave to participate in their children's school
activities.
Resources to Ensure a Great Public School for Every Child
Fully fund ESEA programs at their authorized levels.
Enforce Sec. 9527(a) of NCLB, which prevents the federal
government from requiring states and school districts to spend their
own funds--beyond what they receive from the federal government--to
implement federal mandates.
Protect essential ESEA programs by:
Providing a separate ESEA funding stream for school
improvement programs to assist districts and schools
Providing adequate funding to develop and improve
assessments that measure higher order thinking skills
Establishing a trigger whereby any consequences facing
schools falling short of the new accountability system are implemented
only when Title I is funded at its authorized level
Providing a separate ESEA funding stream for supplemental
education services and school choice, if these mandates remain in the
law
Providing adequate funding to develop and improve
appropriate assessments for students with disabilities and English
Language Learner students
Providing technical assistance to schools to help them use
money more effectively
Providing adequate funding to assist state and local
education agencies in administering assessments, and collecting and
interpreting data in a timely manner so it can be useful to educators
Important children's and education programs outside of
ESEA, including child nutrition, Head Start, IDEA, children's health,
child care, and related programs, must be adequately funded.
NEA's Positive Agenda for the ESEA Reauthorization
PART ONE: Great Public Schools Criteria
All children have a basic right to a great public school. Our
vision of what great public schools need and should provide
acknowledges that the world is changing and public education is
changing too. Fulfilling these Great Public Schools (GPS) criteria
require not only the continued commitment of all educators, but the
concerted efforts of policymakers at all levels of government. We
believe these criteria will:
Prepare all students for the future with 21st century
skills
Create enthusiasm for learning and engaging all students
in the classroom
Close achievement gaps and increase achievement for all
students
Ensure that all educators have the resources and tools
they need to get the job done
These criteria form a basis for NEA's priorities in offering
Congress a framework for the 2007 reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act. The reauthorization process must involve all
stakeholders, especially educators. Genuine involvement taps a breadth
of knowledge, insights, and experiences that form the basis of sound
educational programs and fosters commitment and success.
Quality programs and services that meet the full range of
all children's needs so that they come to school every day ready and
able to learn.
High expectations and standards with a rigorous and
comprehensive curriculum for all students.
Quality conditions for teaching and lifelong learning.
A qualified, caring, diverse, and stable workforce.
Shared responsibility for appropriate school
accountability by stakeholders at all levels.
Parental, family, and community involvement and
engagement.
Adequate, equitable, and sustainable funding.
The Details of the Great Public Schools Criteria
Quality programs and services that meet the full range of
all children's needs so that they come to school every day ready and
able to learn.
Children need a broad array of programs so they are ready to learn
every day they are in school. Students must have access to programs
such as public school pre-K and kindergarten; afterschool enrichment
and intervention; nutrition, including school breakfast and lunch;
school-based health care and related services; counseling and mentoring
for students and families; safe and efficient transportation; and safe
and drug-free schools.
Brief descriptions of each area follow:
Preschool
Numerous studies have shown that high quality early care
experiences, both classroom practices and teacher-child relationship,
enhance children's abilities to take advantage of the learning
opportunities in school.
A recent study by the National Academy of Sciences notes that much
of the human brain develops in the first five years of life and a
stimulating environment during this stage changes the very physiology
of the brain. High quality early care leads to the development of more
advanced learning skills in language and math, as well as social
skills.
NEA supports polices and resources for quality, voluntary,
universal preschool and pre-K programs that provide a safe environment,
well prepared teachers, small class size, interactive relationships
among teachers and children, emphasis in both social and learning
skills, and that involve parents.
Kindergarten
Kindergarten is a year of transition from home and early childhood
education programs to formal school programs. At least a half-day of
kindergarten is a near-universal experience for American children, with
nearly 98 percent of youngsters attending, Some children have access to
full-day, half-day, and alternate-day programs while others have access
to only one of these options. Recent research has shown that children
who attend full-day kindergarten are better prepared to succeed in the
first grade and beyond.
NEA supports policies and resources that provide high quality full-
day kindergarten programs for all children.
Afterschool
Afterschool hours are the peak time for juvenile crime and risky
behaviors such as alcohol and drug use. Most experts agree that
afterschool programs offer a healthy and positive alternative. These
programs keep kids safe, improve academic achievement and help relieve
the stresses on today's working families. They can serve as important
youth violence prevention and intervention strategies. Yet, every day,
at least eight million children and youth are left alone and
unsupervised once the school bell rings at the end of the school day.
NEA supports policies and resources to ensure all children and
youth access to high quality afterschool programs that both provide a
safe environment and help improve student learning.
Nutrition
While the National School Lunch program provides nutritionally
balanced, low-cost, or free lunches to more than 28 million children
each school day, too many schoolchildren still lack access to a hot
breakfast or other adequate nutrition. Malnourished children have
impaired concentration and greater challenges in learning. In addition,
improving the nutritional quality of school lunches and other meals can
promote healthy eating habits in children.
NEA supports expanding child nutrition programs and enhancing their
nutritional quality to ensure that all children have access to healthy,
nutritious meals at school.
Health Needs
In response to a need for student health services, a number of
communities have established school-based health centers (SBHCs). The
more than 1,000 SBHCs nationwide are popular as providers of
affordable, convenient, confidential, and comprehensive services at the
school. These programs overcome barriers that discourage adolescents
from utilizing health services (such as lack of confidentiality,
inconvenient appointment times, prohibitive costs, and general
apprehension about discussing personal health problems). Unfortunately
too many children, especially children from low-income families, lack
access to such services.
NEA supports policies and resources that enable communities to
expand the number and the quality of school-based health centers so
that all children have access to medical care, counseling, health
education, and preventive services provided in a familiar and ``teen-
friendly'' setting on or near school grounds. Such services should be
provided by health professionals who are experienced and trained to
work with adolescents.
Counseling
Counseling programs staffed by professional school counselors,
school psychologists, and school social workers help all students in
the areas of student learning, personal/social development and career
development, ensuring that students become productive, well-adjusted
adults. Effective counseling programs are important to the school
climate and in improving student achievement. Too often, however, these
professionals have unreasonable caseloads, but counselors are expected
to attend to the individual needs of students. In addition, many
counselors are serving as testing coordinators, diverting their time
away from meeting students' needs. The American School Counselor
Association recommends a counselor-to-student ratio of 1:250; the
National Association of School Psychologists recommends a school
psychologist-to-student ratio of 1:1,000; and the School Social Work
Association of America recommends a social worker-to-student ratio of
1:400 for an effective program.
NEA supports policies and resources to states and school districts
enabling them to achieve this important goal.
Mentoring Programs
Mentoring programs for students are an important resource for
students and their parents or guardians. Parents are the most important
influence on their children's lives. But parents often need help.
Mentoring offers parents the support of a caring one-to-one
relationship that fosters their child's healthy growth.
Mentoring programs have been shown to contribute to better
attitudes toward school, better school attendance, and a better chance
of going on to higher education. They also show promise in preventing
substance abuse and appear to reduce other negative youth behaviors.
NEA supports policies and resources to expand programs, such as the
mentoring program in Title IV of ESEA to provide mentoring services to
all students who would benefit.
Transportation
Every school day, millions of parents and their children rely on
the ``yellow'' school bus to provide safe and dependable transportation
to and from school and school-related activities. In fact, according to
the National Safety Council, school buses are the safest form of ground
transportation--40 times safer than the family car.
Most states, except for the transportation of students with special
needs, have no mandate to provide students with transportation to or
from school. Even in states where transportation of students to and
from school is required by law, distances set forth in the law fail to
take account of hazardous pedestrian crossings, and funding shortfalls
create problems in maintaining an adequate school transportation
program.
As a result of budget constraints, many schools are seeking
alternative transportation services for students. NEA agrees with the
National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation
Services that the safest way to transport children to and from school
and school-related activities is in a school bus.
NEA supports policies and resources that ensure all students have
access to needed transportation in safe and modern school buses, and
that all buses be provided with radios to ensure communication between
drivers, schools, and other authorities in case of emergencies.
School Climate
A positive school climate encourages positive behaviors with
rewards for meeting expectations and clear consequences for violating
rules. Research shows that schools with a positive and welcoming school
climate increase the likelihood that students succeed academically,
while protecting them from engaging in high risk behaviors like
substance abuse, sexual activities, and violence.
Most students and teachers report feeling safe in their schools,
yet a 2002 study of school safety revealed that about one-fourth would
avoid a specific place at school out of fear that someone might hurt or
bully them. More than one-quarter (27%) of teachers in middle and high
schools reported that the behavior of some students kept them from
instructional activities during significant amounts of the school day.
NEA supports policies and resources, including safe and drug-free
schools programs, to assist all schools in creating and maintaining
safe and disciplined school sites.
High expectations and standards with a rigorous and
comprehensive curriculum for all students.
NEA supports policies and resources to ensure all students access
to a rigorous, comprehensive education. A rigorous curriculum, as
defined by NEA, means that critical thinking, problem solving, and high
level communication and literacy skills are included, as well as deep
understandings of content. Rigor includes life skills and dispositions
that support lifelong learning, such as persistence and thoroughness.
Rigor does not mean simply a certain number of courses, more difficult
courses, more time in class, or more test preparation.
NEA is not alone in calling for a broader definition of rigor. The
Partnership for 21st Century Skills, a broad-based coalition of
education organizations and major businesses states: ``Rigor must
reflect all the results that matter for all high school graduates
today. Today's graduates need to be critical thinkers, problem solvers
and effective communicators, who are proficient in both core subjects
and new, 21st century content and skills.''
A comprehensive curriculum includes social skills, arts, health,
physical education, a range of content understandings, and
opportunities to practice and develop creative and divergent thinking.
The curriculum must be aligned with standards and assessments, and
should include more than what can be assessed on a paper and pencil
multiple choice test.
NEA continues to advocate the use of a variety of assessments
aligned to the standards and appropriate to the purposes for which they
are used. Assessment systems should include classroom assessments and
multiple measures rather than a single standardized test. Increasingly,
both educational researchers and the corporate world are concerned that
teaching, focused on what is most conveniently tested, limits our
students' ability to succeed in school and life, and threatens our
nation's competitiveness globally.
Students held to high expectations need access to instructional
systems, strategies, and programs that enable them to be successful
learners. Teachers need flexibility in programs and a range of
materials and tools to support their work in recognizing and addressing
the diversity of students, and to enable them to reach all students.
Quality conditions for teaching and lifelong learning.
Quality conditions of teaching and learning include smaller class
sizes; optimal-sized learning communities so that students can receive
individualized attention; safe, healthy, modern, and orderly schools;
up-to-date textbooks, technology, media centers, and materials;
policies that encourage collaboration among staff, with increased
planning time and shared decisionmaking; and the providing of data in a
timely manner, with staff training in the use of data for
decisionmaking about student instructional plans, educational programs,
and resource allocations.
Class size has a direct impact on student achievement. The
preponderance of research evidence indicates that achievement increases
as class size is reduced. Smaller classes allow more time for teaching
and more individualized attention for students. Studies have shown that
smaller class size provides lasting benefits, especially for minority
and low-income students, and for students with exceptional needs.
Students in smaller classes in the early grades (such as K-3) continue
to reap academic benefits through middle and high school.
NEA supports policies and resources to achieve a maximum class size
of 15 students in regular programs, and a proportionately lower number
in programs for students with exceptional needs, including children
with disabilities and English Language Learners.
A qualified, caring, diverse, and stable workforce.
NEA believes all newly hired teachers must have received strong
preparation in both content and how to teach that content to children.
A qualified, caring, diverse, and stable workforce in our schools
requires a pool of well prepared, highly skilled candidates for all
vacancies, and high quality opportunities for continual improvement and
growth for all employees.
The federal government should fund programs that provide financial
incentives for qualified individuals to enter the teaching profession,
and for collaboratives between school districts, teacher unions and
institutions of higher education for the development of programs that
would facilitate the recruitment and retention of a qualified diverse
group of teacher candidates.
All newly hired teachers should receive quality induction and
mentoring services from trained veteran teachers, to ensure a
successful experience in the first years and decrease the turnover of
new teachers.
Veteran classroom teachers must be intimately involved in every
phase of the training and preparation of teacher candidates. A high
quality professional development program, designed by school-based
practitioners and supported by higher education faculty, should be a
right of all teachers and other educators, including paraeducators,
pupil support personnel, and administrators. High quality and effective
professional development should follow the guidelines and standards of
the National Staff Development Council.
Additionally, there should be effective processes in place to
identify and train teachers as leaders, so they can lead school
improvement efforts, create collaborative teacher communities, and
build momentum for change among their colleagues.
Peer assistance should be available to help struggling teachers
improve professional practice, retain promising teachers, and build
professional knowledge to improve student success.
To attract, retain, and support the highest quality teachers,
paraeducators, and other school employees, schools must have a healthy
environment, supportive climate, and working conditions that support
success, and provide professional compensation and benefits.
Too many teachers leave the profession because of poor working
conditions. All educators--teachers, paraeducators, and others--should
have appropriate workloads/caseloads that enable them to provide the
individual attention their students' diverse needs require.
Additionally, programs should promote teacher collaboration and
empowerment, and foster effective principal leadership.
Shared responsibility for appropriate school
accountability by stakeholders at all levels.
States and schools are accountable in how they educate children.
Flawed accountability systems are destructive. Sound school
accountability systems must be effective and fair; ensure high levels
of student achievement, excellent teacher practices and continual
improvement; be based on multiple measures of success; use multiple
assessment tools and sources of data; reflect growth over time; and be
appropriate, valid, and reliable for all groups of students, including
students with disabilities and English Language Learners.
Accountability results should be used to identify policies and
programs that successfully improve student learning; surface and
diagnose problem areas; and, provide positive supports, including
resources for improvement and technical assistance to schools needing
help.
Teachers, other educators, and parents should have an active role
in the development, implementation, and evaluation of accountability
systems at all levels. Policymaking should incorporate existing
processes, including collective bargaining. Improvements in instruction
and quality can be better accomplished through bargaining and other
forms of collective joint decisionmaking.
We support financial accountability to the public from schools,
districts, states, and the federal government, as well as
accountability from policymakers to provide the resources needed for
positive results.
Finally, we propose a transparent accountability system for
policymakers so that policies are determined and communicated in a
consistent and timely manner.
Too often, especially at the federal level, how and why decisions
affecting states and school districts are made is unclear. Critical
policy decisions are often not made in a timely manner, and once
decided are not always made public or readily available.
Parental, family, and community involvement and
engagement.
NEA supports policies to assist and encourage parents, families,
and communities to be actively involved and engaged in their public
schools.
Research demonstrates that family education programs help to
enhance the likelihood of parental involvement. For example, programs
that illustrate to parents their role in helping their children learn
to read encourage early and sustained literacy. In addition, for
parents who are unfamiliar with the educational system in the United
States, parental education helps to enhance their understanding of what
is expected of them and their children in our public schools, how to
access assistance, and how to become engaged in their children's
schools.
Using schools as a community hub brings together public and private
organizations to offer a range of services, assistance, and
opportunities that strengthen and support schools, communities,
families, and students--before, during, and after school.
We support policies and resources to expand and improve such
community schools.
Positive relationships between families, communities, and schools
are of central importance to students' success. Educators need
opportunities to build the skills needed to cultivate these
relationships.
NEA supports policies encouraging the building of skills and
knowledge needed for effective parental and community communication and
engagement strategies in professional development programs for all
educators.
Time and availability are two obvious challenges to parental
involvement. Employers should receive incentives or be required by
policymakers to allow parents to take a reasonable amount of leave to
participate in their children's school activities.
In addition, many parents have strong needs for leadership,
communication, and decisionmaking skills. Employer and community-based
organizations often have skill-building resources that can be tapped to
help teach such skills to employees. Employers would see that engaged
and knowledgeable parents are an asset to public education and be
reminded that quality public education is an asset to business.
Adequate, equitable, and sustainable funding.
Schools must have the necessary resources to fulfill their broad
and growing responsibilities in a changing and increasingly complex
society.
Schools are held accountable for helping students to meet federal
and state standards, while also fulfilling myriad other requirements
and expectations placed on them by policymakers. To ensure that the
necessary resources are available when and where needed, school funding
systems must provide adequate, equitable and sustainable funding.
Adequate funding, at the very minimum, is the level of resources
needed to ensure that all students have a realistic opportunity to meet
federal and state performance standards, taking into account the varied
needs of different types of students. ``Adequacy'' requires a
determination of the appropriate amount of resources needed to meet all
students' needs to obtain a quality education.
NEA supports fully funding ESEA programs at their authorized
levels, to ensure that states and schools have adequate funding for the
programs and services needed to help close achievement gaps and improve
student learning for all.
While less than 10 percent of overall funding for K-12 public
education comes from the federal government, ESEA funding for urban,
rural, and other school districts with concentrated poverty and hard-
to-staff schools that rely heavily on these supplemental federal funds,
is especially crucial.
School funding that is merely adequate in the aggregate is
insufficient. School funding formulas must also be equitable for both
students and taxpayers. For students, equitable funding means that the
quality of their education is not dependent on the wealth of the school
district where a child lives and attends school. For taxpayers, equity
in school funding means that the tax effort across all districts should
be equal to produce the same level of funding. ESEA's Title I program
has built into its funding formulas incentives for states to increase
their education funding effort and steer funds to where they are needed
the most. Adequacy and equity can be accomplished with additional
incentives to states and districts to reduce financial disparities.
To function efficiently, while also meeting the increased demands
being placed on them, schools need funding streams that are stable and
sustainable. Year-to-year fluctuations in available resources and last-
minute uncertainties hamper school districts' efforts to plan, to hire,
and to retain highly qualified and experienced educators, to keep class
sizes small, and to provide other essential resources, ranging from
curriculum materials to transportation.
Making taxes fair and eliminating inefficient and ineffective
business subsidies are essential prerequisites to achieving adequacy,
equity, and stability in school funding.
More than 90 percent of funding for public schools comes from state
and local governments. Ultimately the most important questions
regarding funding for schools are decided at the state and local
levels. The best way to maintain America's competitive edge in this
global, knowledge-based economy is to invest in our ability to produce
and manage knowledge. That means investing in education. Economic
models show clearly that, dollar for dollar, investing in public
education increases the economy more than equal amounts of tax cuts and
subsidies. To date, however, too many lawmakers and policymakers
believe that tax cuts and development subsidies are the best way to
step-up the economy. Thus we see state tax structures that are
increasingly regressive and that produce structural deficits.
Similarly, state economic development policies too often emphasize
inefficient and ineffective corporate subsidies. Together, these
undermine state and local capacity to invest adequately in public
education. Should these trends continue, America's competitive edge in
the global, knowledge-based economy will continue to erode.
PART TWO: NEA's Priorities for ESEA Reauthorization
a great public school is a basic right of every child
NEA's priorities for the 2007 reauthorization of ESEA focus on a
broad range of policies, as articulated in this report, to ensure every
child access to a great public school.
ESEA, originally passed on April 9, 1965, was a key component of
the ``War on Poverty'' launched by President Lyndon Johnson. Title I
provided resources to meet the needs of educationally deprived children
through compensatory education programs for the poor. President Johnson
said it would help ``five million children of poor families overcome
their greatest barrier to progress: poverty.''
The original ESEA was authorized through 1970. Congress has since
rewritten--or reauthorized--this landmark law eight times. The No Child
Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 is the most recent version. Since the
law's inception in 1965, NEA has strongly supported ESEA and its
programs: Title I; professional development; afterschool; safe and
drug-free schools; bilingual education; and others.
The 1994 ESEA reauthorization--called the Improving America's
Schools Act (IASA)--shifted the focus of Title I from providing
financial support to schools with high concentrations of children in
poverty, to standards-based reform. (For a more detailed history of
ESEA see Appendix A.)
The current version of ESEA--the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)--
is fundamentally flawed. It undermines existing state and school
district structures and authority, and shifts public dollars to the
private sector through supplemental educational services and takeovers
of public schools by for-profit companies.
However, its stated goals--to improve student achievement and help
close the achievement and skills gaps which exist in our country--are
important to NEA and our society. NCLB represents a fundamental shift
in ESEA that greatly expanded the federal role in education. The 1994
ESEA required all states to develop content and performance standards
in reading and math and to measure the progress of student achievement
in Title I schools through adequate yearly progress reports. NCLB,
however, expanded the law's requirements to all schools, regardless of
whether they received federal funds, and thus affects every public
school in America.
It dictates to states how they measure student achievement and the
timelines they must use; establishes the requirement that 100 percent
of all students be proficient in reading and math by the 2013--14
school year; mandates certain consequences or sanctions for failure to
meet AYP; and for the first time, requires that both teachers and
paraeducators meet a federally defined standard of highly qualified.
Under Title I alone, it establishes 588 federal requirements for states
and schools.
The law's principal flaws revolve around its one-size-fits-all
system for measuring student achievement and school system success, and
its rigid definitions of highly qualified teachers and
paraprofessionals. Further, the law is incomplete because it fails to
provide the additional tools and supports educators and students need
to accomplish the law's stated goals of improving student achievement
and closing the achievement gaps. To address the law's stated goals,
Congress must: 1) substantially improve the measurement system for
adequate yearly progress to reduce reliance on statewide paper and
pencil tests and to recognize growth and progress over time; and 2)
provide states, schools, and students with programs and resources to
support their work in improving the level and quality of all students'
skills and knowledge.
We want to retain the positive provisions of ESEA--both those that
existed prior to NCLB and those that were added by NCLB--in the 2007
reauthorization. These positive provisions include: targeting funds in
both Title I and other programs to schools with the highest
concentrations of students in poverty; an increased focus on closing
achievement gaps through disaggregated student achievement data; grants
for school improvement; strengthened rights of homeless children to
access public education; protection of school employees' rights during
school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring; strengthened
parental involvement requirements in Title I; requirements for high
quality professional development for teachers; help for small, high-
poverty rural schools; and programs for dropout prevention, math-
science education, safe and drug-free schools, mentoring, school
counseling, and school libraries. Unfortunately, while written into the
law, virtually all of these programs are severely underfunded.
Congress must shift from the current focus, that labels and
punishes schools with a flawed one-size-fits-all accountability system
and severely underfunded mandates to one that includes common-sense
flexibility and supports educators in implementing programs that
improve student learning, reward success, and provide meaningful
assistance to schools most in need of help.
The following five priorities are crucial to realizing the goals of
improving student achievement, closing the achievement gaps, and
providing every child a quality teacher.
Accountability That Rewards Success And Supports Educators
To Help Students Learn
Smaller Class Sizes To Improve Student Achievement
Quality Educators In Every Classroom And School
Students And Schools Supported By Active And Engaged
Parents, Families, And Communities
Resources To Ensure A Great Public School For Every Child
A growing chorus of voices is calling for corrections to this law.
An alliance of 75 national organizations--including the NAACP, the
Children's Defense Fund, the American Association of School
Administrators, the National Council of Churches, the League of United
Latin American Citizens (LULAC), and the Council for Exceptional
Children--representing education, civil rights, special education,
various religions, children, and citizens have joined together through
the Forum on Educational Accountability in proposing 14 specific
changes to the law. Other education groups that have issued policy
proposals for amendments to the law include the National School Boards
Association, the American Federation of Teachers, and the National
Association of Secondary School Principals.
The National Governors Association (NGA) in March 2006 issued its
proposals for change. The NGA statement notes that, ``Maximum
flexibility in designing state accountability systems, including
testing, is critical to preserve the amalgamation of federal funding,
local control of education, and state responsibility for system-wide
reform.''
The National Conference of State Legislatures in February 2005
issued a report calling on Congress to make substantial changes to the
law. The report states:
``Administrators at the state, local and school levels are
overwhelmed by AYP because it holds schools to overly prescriptive
expectations, does not acknowledge differences in individual
performance, does not recognize significant academic progress because
it relies on absolute achievement targets, and inappropriately
increases the likelihood of failure for diverse schools.''
I. Accountability That Rewards Success and Supports Educators To Help
Students Learn
The current Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) model is a fundamentally
flawed system that fails to accurately measure student learning and
school success. Schools are held accountable based solely on a one-day
snapshot of student performance on a standardized reading test and a
standardized math test.
The law's AYP model uses overly narrow measures and contains
unrealistic timelines for school improvement. It results in improperly
labeling many schools as low-performing and imposing punishments on
them. AYP holds all schools accountable based solely on how many
students reach a specific point on the achievement scale on one
standardized test in each of two subjects--reading and math.
It fails to account for a school's results in improving student
achievement over time. Instead of measuring each individual student's
growth over time, it compares, for example, the snapshot of test scores
for this year's fourth-grade class to the snapshot of test scores for
last year's fourth-grade class, a different group of students with
different strengths and different weaknesses.
It fails to recognize that all children can learn, but all children
do not learn at the same rate. It fails to include fair, valid, and
reliable measures for students with special needs, including students
with disabilities and English Language Learners. It fails to
differentiate between those schools that are truly struggling to close
achievement gaps and those that fall short on only one of 37 federally
mandated criteria. Finally, it fails to include a comprehensive set of
measures for school quality and student learning, focusing only on one
statewide standardized test in two subjects.
Consequently, it overidentifies thousands of schools as low-
performing. Several studies project that well over 90 percent of public
schools will eventually fail to meet federal standards and be subjected
to severe sanctions. This overidentification hampers efforts to target
limited resources to the neediest schools and students. Further, the
focus on overidentification and accompanying sanctions diverts
attention from assistance to states, districts, and schools that need
to develop systemic improvement plans. Finally, NCLB's mandated
sanctions are not research-based, divert money away from classroom
services, and generally have not improved student achievement.
NEA supports the following policies that would meet the Great
Public Schools criteria for stakeholders at all levels to share
appropriate accountability and for high expectations and standards with
a rigorous and comprehensive curriculum for all students:
School accountability should be a measurement beyond just scores on
statewide assessments.
Accountability systems should be based upon multiple measures,
including: local assessments, teacher-designed classroom assessments
collected over time, portfolios and other measures of student learning,
graduation/dropout rates, in-grade retention, percent of students
taking honors/advanced classes and Advanced Placement exams, and
college enrollment rates. States should have the flexibility to design
systems that produce results, including deciding in which grades to
administer annual statewide tests, rather than being subject to a rigid
federal one-size-fits-all system.
An improved accountability system should allow states the
flexibility to utilize growth models and other measures of progress
that assess student learning over time, and recognize improvement on
all points of the achievement scale. Growth models should use
measurement results as a guide to revise instructional practices and
curriculum, to provide individual assistance to students, and to
provide appropriate professional development to teachers and other
educators. They should not be used to penalize teachers or schools.
NEA is working with the Forum on Educational Accountability and a
panel of experts in assessment to develop in greater detail models of
effective systems that utilize multiple measures and growth models.
Assessment systems must be appropriate, valid, and reliable for all
groups of students, including students with disabilities and English
Language Learners.
Appropriate systems provide for common-sense flexibility in
assessing these student subgroups, including more closely aligning ESEA
assessment requirements with students' Individualized Education
Programs (IEPs) under IDEA, and eliminating arbitrary federal limits on
the number of students who may be given assessments based on alternate
or modified achievement standards. For ELL students, we propose
exempting from AYP their scores on reading and math tests not given in
their native language for at least their first two years in the United
States, while continuing to require that their progress in reaching
English language proficiency be measured through annual assessments.
Policies should ensure that states, school districts, and schools
actively involve teachers and other educators in the planning,
development, implementation, and refinement of standards, curriculum,
assessments, accountability, and improvement plans. Their training and
experience represent a valuable resource in designing programs that
work for students. Accountability systems and the use of the ensuing
results must also respect the rights of school employees under federal,
state, or local law, and collective bargaining agreements.
Accountability systems should provide support and assistance,
including financial support for improvement and technical assistance to
schools needing help, target assistance to schools and districts most
in need of improvement, and provide realistic timelines for making
improvements.
In addition, accountability systems must be sensitive to the
specific needs of rural and urban schools.
Assessment and accountability systems should be closely aligned
with high standards and classroom curricula, provide timely data to
guide teaching strategies and help improve student learning, and be
comprehensive and flexible so that they do not result in narrowing of
the curricula.
As a result of the growing emphasis on achieving AYP and the need
to reallocate resources toward accomplishing that, many school
districts have de-emphasized and even eliminated courses in the liberal
arts, humanities, and performing arts. We deplore this tendency that
limits a child. These subjects create the appropriate context to
develop the whole child. Redefining the art of teaching so narrowly
significantly reduces creativity and critical thinking and diminishes a
child's enthusiasm and motivation to explore and to learn.
NEA advocates the creation of a federal grant program to assist
schools in ensuring all students access to a comprehensive curriculum
that provides a broad range of subjects and deep knowledge in each
subject. Students in high-poverty schools must not be limited to an
instructional program that is narrowly focused on basic skills, as is
happening too often under NCLB.
A comprehensive accountability system must appropriately apply to
high schools without increasing dropout rates. High schools need
programs and resources for adolescent literacy, dropout prevention,
counseling, smaller learning communities, and expansion of AP and IB
courses if they are to meet the diverse needs of all of their students.
In order to measure high school graduation rates meaningfully, all
states and school districts should report such data on a disaggregated
basis, using the definition proposed by the National Governors
Association and supported by many groups, including NEA.
Standards and assessments must incorporate the nature of work and
civic life in the 21st century: high-level thinking, learning, and
global understanding skills, as well as sophisticated information,
communication, and technology literacy competencies.
Corporate America is telling us that a total focus on the most
basic of skills is threatening our education system and our economic
viability. Meaningfully assessing 21st century skills will require
tests that measure higher-order thinking and problem solving, utilizing
more than multiple choice questions. Too often we are holding students
to obsolete standards that don't reflect contemporary challenges.
If a school, after receiving additional financial assistance,
technical assistance and other supports, fails to demonstrate that it
is closing the achievement gaps, supportive interventions need to
occur.
The most successful learning strategies are grounded on advice and
coaching. School improvement teams, which include teachers and other
educators from similar schools that have been successful, can function
as mentors and examples. These teams should provide assistance based on
the fact that profound, long-term, and sustained improvement of schools
is the result of efforts that recognize essential principles:
Incentives are better than mandates in producing change.
Increased student achievement should encompass more than
just increased test scores. It should also reflect deep and broad
learning.
Teachers must play a central role in school reform efforts
because of their firsthand knowledge of their students and how their
schools work.
Rather than starting from scratch in reinventing schools,
it makes most sense to graft thoughtful reforms onto what is healthy in
the present system.
NEA is proposing a new and improved system of accountability. If
certain elements of the current AYP system are maintained, specific
flaws must be corrected. Necessary corrections include: providing more
than one year to implement improvement plans before subjecting schools
or districts to additional sanctions; designating schools or districts
as ``in need of improvement'' only when the same subgroup of students
fails to make AYP in the same subject for at least two consecutive
years; targeting school choice and supplemental educational services
(SES) to the specific subgroups that fail to make AYP; allowing schools
to provide SES prior to providing school choice; and improving the
quality of supplemental education services, ensuring that SES providers
serve all eligible students and utilize only highly qualified teachers.
II. Smaller Class Sizes To Improve Student Achievement
Smaller class size is a key element to achieving the Great Public
Schools criterion of quality conditions for teaching and lifelong
learning.
The classroom is the nexus of student learning and class size has a
direct impact on student achievement. Smaller classes allow more time
for teaching and more individualized attention for students. The
preponderance of research evidence indicates that learning increases as
class size is reduced, especially in the early grades. Studies have
shown that smaller class size provides lasting benefits for students,
especially for minority and low-income students, and for students with
exceptional needs. Even in the upper grades teachers can be more
successful in increasing student learning when they can provide more
individualized attention.
NEA recommends an optimum class size of 15 students in regular
programs, especially in the early grades, and a proportionately lower
number in programs for students with exceptional needs including
children with disabilities and English Language Learners.
Fewer than 15 students is an optimal class size, especially in
kindergarten (K) and grade 1. Researchers have documented benefits from
class size of 15--18 students in K and of fewer than 20 students in
grades 1--3. Students in smaller classes in the early grades (such as
K-3) continue to reap academic benefits through middle and high school,
especially if they are minority or low-income students.
NEA supports restoring the Class Size Reduction program that
existed prior to NCLB.
Closing the achievement gaps requires that teachers have more
opportunities to work with students who need greater assistance. ESEA
should provide a dedicated funding stream to complete the job of hiring
100,000 highly qualified teachers to reduce class size.
An innovative way to ensure that students receive more
individualized assistance is pairing two teachers in the same
classroom. This strategy is discussed in more detail in the next
section.
We support a combination of federal programs--through both direct
grants and tax subsidies to states and school districts--for school
modernization to accommodate smaller classes.
III. Quality Educators In Every Classroom and School
A growing body of research confirms what school-based personnel
have known--that the skills and knowledge of teachers and support
professionals are the greatest factor in how well students learn. The
credibility of each and every educator is damaged when one of us is
unprofessional or unprepared.
Our proposals would help meet the Great Public Schools criteria of
quality conditions for teaching and lifelong learning; and a qualified,
caring, diverse, and stable workforce.
Our policies are focused on maximizing the knowledge, skills, and
abilities of school-based personnel, creating the conditions to allow
educators to do their best work, and making sure that the right people
are in the right place to meet the needs of all students. In addition
to teachers, many other educators and school staff, including
paraeducators, administrators, counselors, school nurses, librarians
and media specialists, bus drivers, food service workers, school
maintenance staff, security personnel, and secretaries all play an
important role in improving student learning by meeting the educational
and other needs of students.
Our specific proposals for increasing the knowledge and skills of
teachers are focused on professional development and on National Board
Certification. Federal policy should be directed toward providing
states and school districts with the resources and technical assistance
to create an effective program of professional development and
professional accountability for all employees. Effective professional
development should promote continuing growth. It should create
opportunities to acquire new knowledge and apply the best pedagogical
practices consistent with the school's goals.
Specifically, we propose revision of the ESEA Title II--Teacher
Quality State Grant program--by refining the program criteria and
ensuring alignment of federally funded teacher professional development
with the National Staff Development Council (NSDC) standards. We also
propose federally funded salary enhancements for teachers who achieve
National Board Certification, with a smaller salary incentive for
teachers who complete this rigorous process and receive a score, but do
not achieve certification.
Our second set of proposals is focused on creating the conditions
in which teachers and education support professionals can apply their
knowledge and skills most effectively to help children learn.
We propose a grant program to states willing to encourage skills-
and knowledge-based staffing arrangements in schools. This program
should encourage collaboration between the school administration and
the local organization representing teachers and other educators, as
well as increased collaboration among teachers and between teachers and
other education staff, to promote innovation in the way teachers' and
support professionals' roles and responsibilities are defined. The
development and implementation of such programs must respect existing
collective bargaining agreements. Teachers with specific knowledge and
skills should be encouraged to assist their colleagues to become better
at what they do, and should receive additional compensation for taking
on new roles
However, we remain opposed to pay systems that directly link
teacher compensation to student test scores. Such merit pay systems
fail to recognize that teaching is not an individual, isolated
profession. Rather, it is a profession dependent on the entire network
of teaching professionals, where the foundation for student achievement
is built over time from each of the student's educators. Further merit
pay undermines the collegiality and teamwork that create a high-
performing learning institution.
Education support professionals should be afforded every
opportunity to broaden and enhance their skills and knowledge through
training/professional development offerings, mentoring, and programs
designed to support them as they assist the classroom teacher. They
should be compensated for taking additional courses or doing course
work for advanced degrees to assist in the classroom and to support
student learning.
We propose federal grants that support innovation in addressing
teacher workload issues, especially in struggling schools.
These grants should allow districts and schools to experiment with
proposals such as assisting new teachers by pairing them in a classroom
with an experienced teacher, and compensating the experienced teacher
to induct and mentor the new teacher. Co-teaching--two qualified
teachers in one classroom--can benefit students by effectively reducing
the class size per teacher allowing for more individual attention. Co-
teaching also allows increased mentoring opportunities for teachers,
can reduce the need for less qualified substitute teachers, and can
enhance parental involvement and communication.
Hard-to-staff schools should be provided with an adequate number of
well trained administrators and support professionals, including
paraeducators, counselors, social workers, psychologists, and clerical
support. Teachers and support professionals in these schools should
have access to targeted professional development focused on the
specific needs of the school and community. These proposals would
reduce the costly and disruptive turnover common in struggling schools.
Paraeducators who are involuntarily transferred to a Title I school
and who had not met the highly qualified standard required under NCLB
in Title I schools, should be given adequate time to meet the
requirement. The school district should be responsible for any
remuneration required for meeting the standard (i.e., taking an
assessment or taking continuing or higher education courses).
The third set of proposals focuses on distribution of the educator
workforce--ways to ensure that all schools, no matter how challenging,
are staffed by high quality education professionals.
We propose that teachers and support professionals who work in
schools identified as ``in need of improvement'' or high-poverty
schools, and stay in such schools for at least five years, be eligible
for financial incentives--both direct federal subsidies and tax
credits--for retention, relocation, and housing.
We also propose that the definition of ``highly qualified''
teachers be revised to respect state licensure and certification
systems, and eliminate nonessential requirements that create
unnecessary obstacles for talented and skilled teachers and loopholes
in the scope of coverage for some charter school teachers, alternative
route teachers, and supplemental education service provider
instructors.
Specifically, we propose that all fully licensed special education
teachers be designated as highly qualified; that broad-based social
studies certification count as meeting the highly qualified
requirements for any social studies discipline; and that additional
flexibility be provided for middle school teachers, including accepting
an academic minor to demonstrate subject matter competence. We also
propose expanding the definition of ``rural schools'' used in the
current rural school timeline extension. Finally, we propose that all
teachers employed in programs authorized and/or funded through the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, including those in charter
schools and supplemental education service providers, be required to
meet the same definition regarding qualifications.
Due to numerous rules and guidance changes by the U.S. Department
of Education (DOE), as well as DOE's recent notification to some states
that their definitions were not in compliance, some teachers will have
an extremely limited amount of time to meet the new definitions imposed
upon their state, or may still not know the exact rules they must meet.
In several states, teachers were told by their state that they met the
highly qualified rules but now, years after the fact in some cases, the
federal government is ruling their states' definitions out of
compliance. As a result, tens of thousands of teachers have already
been notified they were highly qualified and may suddenly find
themselves classified as not highly qualified. DOE appears to believe
that content knowledge trumps all other forms of knowledge and skills
(including decades of successful teaching).
Teachers who may not meet the highly qualified standard by the end
of the current deadlines due to these significant implementation
problems should not be penalized, but instead should be provided with
assistance and additional time to meet the requirement.
Additionally, we propose that paraeducators who meet the highly
qualified standard be granted reciprocity if they move to another state
or district, where assessment scores or qualifications are different.
Paraeducators should be able to provide documentation that they have
met the requirements from a previous state or district to the receiving
state or district. Documentation should be provided within 12 months of
their hiring.
IV. Students and Schools Supported By Active and Engaged Parents,
Families, and Communities
NEA supports inclusion of programs in ESEA that help to enhance
family and community involvement.
Adult and family literacy programs encourage parents to model
reading, which promotes early and sustained literacy, and enable
parents to be more involved in their children's education, particularly
with homework. Parenting classes can explain the significance of
adequate sleep, appropriate nutrition, and other factors, so that
children come to school ready to learn and can help parents understand
their role as partners in their children's education.
An engaged community is a supportive community. Community
engagement programs can expand the stakeholders in public education to
include community organizations. Parent leaders can bring greater
awareness of school issues to review boards, panels, oversight
committees, and public officials.
Language barriers serve as an obstacle to school/family
partnerships in growing numbers of communities. Strategies that have
worked well include providing a bilingual teacher or other translator
for parent conferences and other parent involvement activities, and
multilingual school-to-home communications. In addition, for parents
who are unfamiliar with the U.S. educational system, parent education
helps to enhance their understanding of what is expected of them and
their children in their public schools.
All schools should be encouraged to institute school-parent
compacts--signed by parents--that provide a clearly defined list of
parental expectations and opportunities for involvement.
NEA supports policies and resources that assist communities in
making schools the hub of the community.
Community schools bring together public and private organizations
to offer a range of services, programs, and opportunities--before,
during, and afterschool--that strengthen and support schools,
communities, families, and students. Community schools improve the
coordination, delivery, effectiveness, and efficiency of services
provided to children and families. These schools and communities
develop reciprocal and mutually supportive relationships. In addition
to building strong connections between schools and families and
enhancing student learning, community schools help to make schools and
communities safer and more supportive places; and they use scarce
public, private, and community resources more efficiently.
As an essential component of a highly qualified workforce, NEA
supports including training in the skills and knowledge needed for
effective parental and family communication and engagement strategies
as a requirement for professional development programs funded through
ESEA.
The case for the importance of parent and community engagement in
bolstering public education is well documented. However, the research
base could be strengthened by supporting more research designs that
would enable firmer conclusions to be drawn about the specific effects
of different types of programs.
Parent and community engagement can also be bolstered by more
effective implementation of the parent and community engagement
requirements in Title I of ESEA. Technical assistance to schools and
financial rewards for exemplary involvement or improvement in
involvement would help broaden the ethnic, language, and racial
diversity of those involved in planning parent involvement and would
help ensure that the full community is represented.
We also support expanded funding for the Parent Information and
Resource Centers (PIRC) program in ESEA. The PIRC program supports
school-based and school-linked parental information and resource
centers that help implement effective parental involvement policies,
programs, and activities; develop and strengthen partnerships among
parents, teachers, principals, administrators, and other school
personnel in meeting the educational needs of children; and develop and
strengthen the relationship between parents and their children's
school.
Time and availability are two obvious challenges to parental
involvement. Employers should receive incentives or be required to
provide parents a reasonable amount of leave to participate in their
children's school activities.
V. Resources To Ensure a Great Public School For Every Child
When NCLB was enacted, Congress promised to provide the resources
necessary to meet the many mandates contained in the law, provide
school improvement funds to schools that failed AYP, and provide
increased resources especially for Title I and Title II Teacher Quality
to help close achievement gaps, improve overall student achievement,
and ensure all students have a quality teacher. NCLB has never been
funded at the authorized levels. And, after an increase in funding in
the first year (FY 2002), funding for NCLB programs is on the decline,
with most states and school districts facing unfunded mandates, real
cuts in resources, and no federal funds to turn around low-performing
schools. Note the following illustration of ever-diminishing resources:
In the 2005--06 school year, two-thirds of all schools
districts are receiving less Title I money than they did the previous
year. In the 2006--07 school year, an additional 62 percent of school
districts will have their Title I funding cut--most for the second
consecutive year--because Congress reduced overall Title I funding.
Up to 20 percent of school districts' Title I money must
be diverted from classroom services to pay for transportation for
school choice and supplemental services. This mandatory set-aside
compounds the impact of continued reductions in funding. Thus, many
districts are experiencing severe reductions in Title I funds available
for classroom services to help our neediest students improve their
learning, and even districts slated for an increase in Title I funding
have less money available for classroom services after this set-aside.
Under the President's proposed budget for FY 07, 29 states
will receive less Title I money than they did in FY 06, with some
states actually receiving less money than they did three, four, or even
five years ago.
NO money has ever been provided for the school improvement
state grants program. The only money available for school improvement
comes off the top of states' Title I allocations, taking funds from the
few school districts that have not yet had their Title I funding cut.
Funding for teacher quality state grants in FY 06 is less
than the level provided three years ago. The President's budget
proposes to continue funding in FY 07 at this reduced level.
Overall, Title I funding proposed for FY 07 is only
roughly half of the authorized level promised when NCLB was passed,
leaving almost 4.6 million low-income students denied Title I services.
To help meet all the Great Public Schools criteria, and in
particular adequate, equitable, and sustainable funding, NEA supports
the following:
Fully funding ESEA programs at their authorized levels so
that states and schools have adequate funding for programs, including
professional development for teachers and paraeducators, needed to help
close achievement gaps.
Enforcing Sec. 9527(a) of NCLB, which prevents the federal
government from requiring states and school districts to spend their
own funds--beyond what they receive from the federal government--to
implement federal mandates. NEA is joined in this position by school
districts, several states, the American Association of School
Administrators, and other state and local officials.
Protecting essential ESEA programs by:
Providing a separate ESEA funding stream for school
improvement programs to assist districts and schools
Providing adequate funding to develop and improve
assessments that measure higher order thinking skills
Establishing a trigger whereby any consequences facing
schools falling short of the new accountability system are implemented
only when Title I is funded at its authorized level
Providing a separate ESEA funding stream for supplemental
education services and school choice, if these mandates remain in the
law
Providing adequate funding to develop and improve
appropriate assessments for students with disabilities and English
Language Learners
Providing technical assistance to schools to help them use
funds more effectively
Adequately funding important children's and education
programs outside of ESEA, including child nutrition, Head Start, IDEA,
children's health, child care, and related programs. Each of these
programs makes an important contribution to a child's ability to learn.
Further, reduced federal funding for social services programs erodes
funding for education by pitting funding for education against health
care and other needs at the state level, undermining the states'
ability to adequately fund their public schools.
appendix a--the elementary and secondary education act of 1965: from
the war on poverty to no child left behind
The largest source of federal support for K-12 education is the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Passed in 1965 as part
of Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty, ESEA has provided federal funding
to the neediest students and schools for over 40 years. It has been
reauthorized eight times--usually every five or six years--since 1965.
In announcing his plan to construct a ``Great Society,'' President
Johnson stated, ``Poverty must not be a bar to learning, and learning
must offer an escape from poverty.'' \6\ Bolstered by the passage of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, elections yielding an increase in the
number of Congressmen from northern, more urban areas, and his own
landslide election victory, Johnson quickly won passage of ESEA.
Representative John Brademas summarized the congressional sentiment
behind Johnson's legislation, stating, ``Many of us in Congress and
some presidents of both parties perceived that there were indeed
genuine needs--in housing, health, and education--to which state and
city governments were simply not responding. It was this inattention by
state and local political leaders, therefore, that prompted us at the
federal level to say, 'We're going to do something about these
problems.' And we did.'' \7\
ESEA created for the first time a partnership among federal, state,
and local governments to address part of the larger national agenda of
confronting poverty and its damaging effects by targeting federal aid
to poor students and schools. It also was based on a ``grand''
compromise concerning federal aid to private and parochial schools. To
avoid directly sending public dollars to parochial schools, ESEA
instead directed public school districts to use a portion of their
Title I funds to provide services to low-income students enrolled in
private schools. This provision--known as equitable participation--has
stood for over 40 years.
Since then, ESEA has evolved in three major phases. From 1965 to
1980, the reauthorizations of ESEA focused on whether Title I
(providing the bulk of ESEA funds for targeted help to poor students
and high-poverty schools) was to be considered truly targeted funding
or whether it was cleverly disguised as general aid to education (today
over 90 percent of school districts receive Title I funding). This
period was also marked by evolving lists of ``allowable uses'' of Title
I funds, from equipment to professional development to health
services.\8\
The second phase of ESEA--from about 1980 to 1990--saw no
significant increases (when adjusted for inflation) in funding for the
Act, and President Reagan block-granted and consolidated several ESEA
programs. Also during this time, A Nation at Risk--a Reagan
Administration commission report--was released and catapulted education
onto the national political scene as an important issue to voters. The
report clearly linked the state of America's schools to the nation's
economic productivity. In the 1988 reauthorization of ESEA, the first
significant shift in the distribution of Title I dollars occurred,
conditioning the states' receipt of the funds upon some accountability
for improved outcomes. Congress allowed Title I funds to be used for
schoolwide programs (to support systemic improvement in schools where
75 percent of students were in poverty) as a way to respond to the
urgent call for more wide-sweeping reform outlined in Nation at Risk.
Finally, from 1990 to the present, the education debate has been
dominated by the desire of policymakers to see evidence that federal
investments in education programs yield tangible, measurable results in
terms of student achievement and success. The two main examples of this
approach occurred in 1994 and in 2001, with the passage of President
Clinton's Goals 2000 and the Improving America's Schools Act (IASA) and
President George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).
Not surprisingly, the Clinton reauthorization built upon the
standards-based reform initiatives of many governors, including many
who in 1989 attended President Bush's first-ever education summit of
the nation's governors to discuss national standards or goals. Goals
2000, passed in 1993, required all states to develop challenging
standards for all students in reading and math, as well as issue school
report cards. IASA went a step further and required states to develop
and administer statewide assessments to all low-income students at
least once in elementary school, once in middle school, and once in
high school and to develop plans to improve their educational outcomes.
While this policy movement occurred, congressional Republicans adopted
a platform called the ``Contract with America,'' which called for,
among other things, the abolition of the U.S. Department of Education.
By early 1999, however, only 36 states issued school report cards, 19
provided assistance to low-performing schools, and 16 had the authority
to close down persistently low-performing schools.\9\ Ironically,
President Clinton's Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary
Education, Tom Payzant, remarked later, ``The underlying policy
direction of NCLB is consistent with the 1994 reauthorization, but
there's a level of prescriptions with respect to implementation that
[Democrats] would have been soundly criticized for trying to
accomplish, had we done so.'' \10\
In May of 1999, the Clinton Administration forwarded its ESEA
reauthorization proposal to Congress (a proposal that called for more
funding, particularly for class size reduction, school modernization,
and after school programs). A group of centrist Democrats, led by
Senators Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and Evan Bayh (D-IN) developed an
alternative proposal. At the same time, conservative Republicans
authored the ``Straight A's'' plan, which would have block-granted most
federal education programs, shifting power and money to the state
level. Due to these fractures, ESEA was not reauthorized in 1999.
During the 2000 Presidential campaign, Governor George W. Bush and Vice
President Al Gore both embraced continued emphasis on standards-based
reform, but it was Bush who grabbed the Lieberman/Bayh blueprint,
attached a large voucher proposal to it, and campaigned to ``leave no
child behind.''
In February of 2001, shortly after Bush assumed office, Senator
Diane Feinstein (D-CA) sent a letter on behalf of several centrist
Democratic Senators to the President indicating their support for the
basic thrust of the Bush accountability proposal. Senator Ted Kennedy
(D-MA), knowing that Democrats were not united around a common ESEA
reauthorization plan, met shortly thereafter with the White House to
begin negotiating a compromise. Throughout the spring of 2001, Senator
Kennedy and Representative George Miller (D-CA) had ongoing discussions
with the White House in which the Administration agreed to abandon
quietly the fight for its voucher plan (helped tremendously by 5
Republicans voting with all Democrats on the House Education and
Workforce committee to strike voucher provisions from the Committee
bill) in exchange for supplemental services and significantly more
funding. By the summer, however, negotiations had slowed tremendously
due to the difficulty in crafting an Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
definition that did not over-identify schools. White House advisor
Sandy Kress (a Texas Democrat who had helped Bush usher in an NCLB-like
accountability system in Texas) met with an NEA-led task force of
several major education groups to discuss the AYP definition. Kress
stated that the White House did not wish to identify as low-performing
so many schools that it would become impossible to target help to the
schools most in need. Despite this expressed goal, the White House's
involvement in actual negotiations began to lessen.
In August, congressional staff had begun conference negotiations on
the House and Senate bills. Following the September 11th terrorist
attacks and the receipt in Senator Daschle's office of an anthrax-laced
letter, most congressional buildings were locked down for intensive
cleaning. As a result, the ``Big Four''--Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH),
Senator Kennedy, Representative John Boehner (R-OH), and Representative
Miller--began intensive, private negotiations and drafting sessions. By
the time they concluded, ESEA's reauthorization, the ``No Child Left
Behind Act,'' was 1,100 pages long. Members of both parties literally
had a few days to review all of its contents before votes on the final
legislation. In December 2001, the Senate voted 87-10 to approve the
legislation, and the House approved it by a vote of 381-41.
THE ESEA IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Public Law No. Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 107-110 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(Public Law 107-110) requires annual
testing in reading and math in grades
3-8 and at least once in high school,
requires science standards and
assessments in at least three grades,
requires that teachers and education
support professionals meet new quality
requirements, and sanctions schools
that do not make adequate yearly
progress.
1998 105-277 The 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Bill,
including the FY 99 Budget for the
Department of Education. The Reading
Excellence Act and legislation
authorizing the class size reduction
initiative were also included.
1997 105-17 The Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA), to reauthorize
and make improvements to that Act,
which is designed to improve access to
education for those with disabilities.
1994 103-382 Improving America's Schools Act of
1994, reauthorized the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act [ESEA]. Covers
Title I, Safe and Drug-Free Schools,
Eisenhower Professional Development,
bilingual education, impact aid,
charter schools, education technology
and many other programs; also
reauthorized the National Center for
Education Statistics, amended General
Education Provisions Act [GEPA] and
several other acts.
1994 103-239 School-to-Work Opportunities Act of
1994
1993 103-227 GOALS 2000: Educate America Act, also
included reauthorization of the Office
of Educational Research and
Improvement [OERI]). Passed in 1993.
1993 103-33 To authorize the conduct and
development of NAEP (National
Assessment of Educational Progress)
assessments for fiscal year 1994.
1991 102-119 Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act Amendments of 1991 (IDEA)
1990 101-476 Education of the Handicapped Act
Amendments of 1990
1989 ................. President George Bush convened the
first education summit of the nation's
governors. This summit led to the
creation of the first-ever national
goals for education: every child would
come to kindergarten ``ready to
learn,'' America would have a 90%
graduation rate, students would master
five core subjects before advancing
past grades 4, 8, and 12; America's
students would lead the world in math
and science; all adults would be
literate and prepared for the
workforce; and every school would be
safe and drug-free.
1988 100-297 ESEA Reauthorized as the ``Hawkins-
Stafford Elementary and Secondary
School Improvement Amendments of
1988''--major change was allowing
Title I funds to be used for
``schoolwide'' programs in schools
where at least 75% of the students
were at or below the poverty level.
1987 ................. Gallup poll reported that 87% of
Americans believed that the federal
government should require states and
localities to meet some minimum
national standards with respect to
education.
1984 98-211 Education emerged as a top issue in the
Presidential campaign; however, the
Administration's political platform
remained opposed to expanding federal
involvement in education. ESEA
reauthorized with rather technical
changes. (Education Amendments of
1984).
1981 ................. President Reagan's Secretary of
Education, Terrel Bell, appointed the
commission that issued the widely
publicized report, ``A Nation at
Risk.'' The report, which
characterized America's public schools
as mediocre at best, called for
increased salaries and professional
development for teachers, tougher
standards and graduation requirements,
and a more rigorous curriculum.
1981 97-35 ESEA reauthorized as the Education
Consolidation and Improvement Act--
block-granted several programs.
1980 96-88 Department of Education Organization
Act, creating the USED. NEA helped
author this legislation and promoted
it as a top organization priority.
1978 95-561 Education Amendments of 1978
1975 94-142 Education for All Handicapped Children
Act, the origin of today's IDEA.
1974 93-380 Education Amendments of 1974. Adds the
Family Education Rights and Privacy
Act (FERPA, also often called the
Buckley Amendment).
1972 92-318 Education Amendments of 1972 (Title
IX). Prohibits sex discrimination in
education.
1967 90-247 Elementary and Secondary Education
Amendments of 1967. Title IV of this
act is known as the General Education
Provisions Act [GEPA].
1966 89-750 Elementary and Secondary Amendments of
1966. Adult Education Act is Title
III.
1965 89-10; Elementary and Secondary Education Act
89-329 of 1965;
Higher Education Act of 1965
1964 88-352 Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title IV
covers education.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
appendix iv: nea's 12 dropout action steps
1. Mandate high school graduation or equivalency as compulsory for
everyone below the age of 21. Just as we established compulsory
attendance to the age of 16 or 17 in the beginning of the 20th century,
it is appropriate and critical to eradicate the idea of ``dropping
out'' before achieving a diploma. To compete in the 21st century, all
of our citizens, at minimum, need a high school education.
2. Establish high school graduation centers for students 19-21
years old to provide specialized instruction and counseling to all
students in this older age group who would be more effectively
addressed in classes apart from younger students.
3. Make sure students receive individual attention in safe schools,
in smaller learning communities within large schools, in small classes
(18 or fewer students), and in programs during the summer, weekends,
and before and after school that provide tutoring and build on what
students learn during the school day.
4. Expand students' graduation options through creative
partnerships with community colleges in career and technical fields and
with alternative schools so that students have another way to earn a
high school diploma. For students who are incarcerated, tie their
release to high school graduation at the end of their sentences.
5. Increase career education and workforce readiness programs in
schools so that students see the connection between school and careers
after graduation. To ensure that students have the skills they need for
these careers, integrate 21st century skills into the curriculum and
provide all students with access to 21st century technology.
6. Act early so students do not drop out with high-quality,
universal preschool and full-day kindergarten; strong elementary
programs that ensure students are doing grade-level work when they
enter middle school; and middle school programs that address causes of
dropping out that appear in these grades and ensure that students have
access to algebra, science, and other courses that serve as the
foundation for success in high school and beyond.
7. Involve families in students' learning at school and at home in
new and creative ways so that all families-single-parent families,
families in poverty, and families in minority communities-can support
their children's academic achievement, help their children engage in
healthy behaviors, and stay actively involved in their children's
education from preschool through high school graduation.
8. Monitor students' academic progress in school through a variety
of measures during the school year that provide a full picture of
students' learning and help teachers make sure students do not fall
behind academically.
9. Monitor, accurately report, and work to reduce dropout rates by
gathering accurate data for key student groups (such as racial, ethnic,
and economic), establishing benchmarks in each state for eliminating
dropouts, and adopting the standardized reporting method developed by
the National Governors Association.
10. Involve the entire community in dropout prevention through
family-friendly policies that provide release time for employees to
attend parent-teacher conferences; work schedules for high school
students that enable them to attend classes on time and be ready to
learn; ``adopt a school'' programs that encourage volunteerism and
community-led projects in school; and community-based, real-world
learning experiences for students.
11. Make sure educators have the training and resources they need
to prevent students from dropping out including professional
development focused on the needs of diverse students and students who
are at risk of dropping out; up-to-date textbooks and materials,
computers, and information technology; and safe modern schools.
12. Make high school graduation a federal priority by calling on
Congress and the president to invest $10 billion over the next 10 years
to support dropout prevention programs and states who make high school
graduation compulsory.
appendix v: joint organizational statement on no child left behind
(nclb) act
List of signers updated March 8, 2007
The undersigned education, civil rights, children's, disability,
and citizens' organizations are committed to the No Child Left Behind
Act's objectives of strong academic achievement for all children and
closing the achievement gap. We believe that the federal government has
a critical role to play in attaining these goals. We endorse the use of
an accountability system that helps ensure all children, including
children of color, from low-income families, with disabilities, and of
limited English proficiency, are prepared to be successful,
participating members of our democracy.
While we all have different positions on various aspects of the
law, based on concerns raised during the implementation of NCLB, we
believe the following significant, constructive corrections are among
those necessary to make the Act fair and effective. Among these
concerns are: over-emphasizing standardized testing, narrowing
curriculum and instruction to focus on test preparation rather than
richer academic learning; over-identifying schools in need of
improvement; using sanctions that do not help improve schools;
inappropriately excluding low-scoring children in order to boost test
results; and inadequate funding. Overall, the law's emphasis needs to
shift from applying sanctions for failing to raise test scores to
holding states and localities accountable for making the systemic
changes that improve student achievement.
Recommended Changes in NCLB
Progress Measurement
1. Replace the law's arbitrary proficiency targets with ambitious
achievement targets based on rates of success actually achieved by the
most effective public schools.
2. Allow states to measure progress by using students' growth in
achievement as well as their performance in relation to pre-determined
levels of academic proficiency.
3. Ensure that states and school districts regularly report to the
government and the public their progress in implementing systemic
changes to enhance educator, family, and community capacity to improve
student learning.
4. Provide a comprehensive picture of students' and schools'
performance by moving from an overwhelming reliance on standardized
tests to using multiple indicators of student achievement in addition
to these tests.
5. Fund research and development of more effective accountability
systems that better meet the goal of high academic achievement for all
children
Assessments
6. Help states develop assessment systems that include district and
school-based measures in order to provide better, more timely
information about student learning.
7. Strengthen enforcement of NCLB provisions requiring that
assessments must:
Be aligned with state content and achievement standards;
Be used for purposes for which they are valid and
reliable;
Be consistent with nationally recognized professional and
technical standards;
Be of adequate technical quality for each purpose required
under the Act;
Provide multiple, up-to-date measures of student
performance including measures that assess higher order thinking skills
and understanding; and
Provide useful diagnostic information to improve teaching
and learning.
8. Decrease the testing burden on states, schools and districts by
allowing states to assess students annually in selected grades in
elementary, middle schools, and high schools.
Building Capacity
9. Ensure changes in teacher and administrator preparation and
continuing professional development that research evidence and
experience indicate improve educational quality and student
achievement.
10. Enhance state and local capacity to effectively implement the
comprehensive changes required to increase the knowledge and skills of
administrators, teachers, families, and communities to support high
student achievement.
Sanctions
11. Ensure that improvement plans are allowed sufficient time to
take hold before applying sanctions; sanctions should not be applied if
they undermine existing effective reform efforts.
12. Replace sanctions that do not have a consistent record of
success with interventions that enable schools to make changes that
result in improved student achievement.
Funding
13. Raise authorized levels of NCLB funding to cover a substantial
percentage of the costs that states and districts will incur to carry
out these recommendations, and fully fund the law at those levels
without reducing expenditures for other education programs.
14. Fully fund Title I to ensure that 100 percent of eligible
children are served.
We, the undersigned, will work for the adoption of these
recommendations as central structural changes needed to NCLB at the
same time that we advance our individual organization's proposals.
1. Advancement Project
2. American Association of School Administrators
3. American Association of School Librarians (AASL), a division of the
American Library Association (ALA)
4. American Association of University Women
5. American Baptist Women's Ministries
6. American Counseling Association
7. American Dance Therapy Association
8. American Federation of School Administrators (AFSA)
9. American Federation of Teachers
10. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees
(AFSCME)
11. American Humanist Association
12. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
13. Americans for the Arts
14. Annenberg Institute for School Reform
15. Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund
16. Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance (APALA)
17. ASPIRA
18. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
19. Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)
20. Association of Education Publishers
21. Association of School Business Officials International (ASBO)
22. Big Picture Company
23. Center for Community Change
24. Center for Expansion of Language and Thinking
25. Center for Parent Leadership
26. Children's Defense Fund
27. Church Women United
28. Citizens for Effective Schools
29. Coalition for Community Schools
30. Coalition of Essential Schools
31. Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism
32. Communities for Quality Education
33. Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders
34. Council for Exceptional Children
35. Council for Hispanic Ministries of the United Church of Christ
36. Council for Learning Disabilities
37. Council of Administrators of Special Education, Inc.
38. Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform
39. Disciples Home Missions of the Christian Church (Disciples of
Christ)
40. Disciples Justice Action Network (Disciples of Christ)
41. Division for Learning Disabilities of the Council for Exceptional
Children (DLD/CEC)
42. Education Action!
43. Every Child Matters
44. FairTest: The National Center for Fair & Open Testing
45. Forum for Education and Democracy
46. Gender Public Advocacy Coalition (GPAC)
47. Hmong National Development
48. Indigenous Women's Network
49. Institute for Language and Education Policy
50. International Reading Association
51. International Technology Education Association
52. Japanese American Citizens League
53. Learning Disabilities Association of America
54. League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)
55. Ministers for Racial, Social and Economic Justice of the United
Church of Christ
56. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
57. NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund (LDF)
58. National Alliance of Black School Educators
59. National Association for Asian and Pacific American Education
(NAAPAE)
60. National Association for Bilingual Education (NABE)
61. National Association for the Education and Advancement of
Cambodian, Laotian
and Vietnamese Americans (NAFEA)
62. National Association for the Education of African American Children
with Learning Disabilities
63. National Association of Pupil Services Administrators
64. National Association of School Psychologists
65. National Association of Social Workers
66. National Baptist Convention, USA (NBCUSA)
67. National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development
68. National Coalition for Parent Involvement in Education (NCPIE)
69. National Conference of Black Mayors
70. National Council for Community and Education Partnerships (NCCEP)
71. National Council for the Social Studies
72. National Council of Churches
73. National Council of Jewish Women
74. National Council of Teachers of English
75. National Education Association
76. National Federation of Filipino American Associations
77. National Indian Education Association
78. National Indian School Board Association
79. National Korean American Service & Education Consortium (NAKASEC)
80. National Mental Health Association
81. National Ministries, American Baptist Churches USA
82. National Pacific Islander Educator Network
83. National Parent Teacher Association (PTA)
84. National Reading Conference
85. National Rural Education Association
86. National School Boards Association
87. National School Supply and Equipment Association
88. National Superintendents Roundtable
89. National Urban League
90. Native Hawaiian Education Association
91. Network of Spiritual Progressives
92. Organization of Chinese Americans
93. People for the American Way
94. Presbyterian Church (USA)
95. Progressive National Baptist Convention
96. Protestants for the Common Good
97. Public Education Network (PEN)
98. Rural School and Community Trust
99. Service Employees International Union
100. School Social Work Association of America
101. Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund
102. Social Action Committee of the Congress of Secular Jewish
Organizations
103. Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC)
104. Stand for Children
105. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL)
106. The Children's Aid Society
107. The Episcopal Church
108. United Black Christians of the United Church of Christ
109. United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries
110. United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society
111. USAction
112. Women's Division of the General Board of Global Ministries, The
United Methodist Church
113. Women of Reform Judaism
endnotes
\1\ Reports can be found at: http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/.
\2\ A recent report from the NEA Research Department (Teacher Pay
1940--2000: Losing Ground, Losing Status), based on U.S. census data,
finds that annual pay for teachers has fallen sharply over the past 60
years in relation to the annual pay of other workers with college
degrees. The report states: ``Throughout the nation, the average
earnings of workers with at least four years of college are now over 50
percent higher than the average earnings of a teacher.'' Furthermore,
an analysis of weekly wage trends by researchers at the Economic Policy
Institute (EPI) shows that teachers' wages have fallen behind those of
other workers since 1996, with teachers' inflation-adjusted weekly
wages rising just 0.8 percent, far less than the 12 percent weekly wage
growth of other college graduates and of all workers. Further, a
comparison of teachers' weekly wages to those of other workers with
similar education and experience shows that, since 1993, female teacher
wages have fallen behind 13 percent and male teacher wages 12.5 percent
(11.5 percent among all teachers). Since 1979, teacher wages relative
to those of other similar workers have dropped 18.5 percent among
women, 9.3 percent among men, and 13.1 percent among both combined.
\3\ ``Why Money Matters,'' NEA Today, November 2006, http://
www.nea.org/neatoday/0611/feature3.html and http://www.nea.org/pay/
index.html.
\4\ For more information about state initiatives, go to http://
www.teachingquality.org/twc/whereweare.htm.
\5\ NEA member Marjorie Zimmerman, a middle school teacher from Las
Vegas, Nevada, tells NEA ``My school was a high-performing school one
year. Students, for the most part, are interested in learning and they
perform well. The next year, because one too few students took the
test, we were in need of improvement. This demonstrates that the
requirements for meeting AYP certainly are not indicative of true
academic progress by students in the school. Also, given the nature of
standardized tests and the difficulty of improving as one moves toward
the upper end of the spectrum, most schools will eventually be in need
of improvement.'' See Voices from America's Classroom, with first-
person stories from all 50 states about the impact of NCLB, available
at: http://www.nea.org/esea/nclbstories/index.html.
\6\ Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, U.S.
Government Printing Office 1965, Lyndon B. Johnson, Book I (1963-1964):
704-707.
\7\ John Brademas, The Politics of Education: Conflict and
Consensus on Capitol Hill, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press (1987),
p. 77.
\8\ Elizabeth DeBray, Politics, Ideology, and Education: Federal
Policy During the Clinton and Bush Administrations, Teachers College
Press (2006), p. 7.
\9\ Ibid.
\10\ Frederick Hess and Michael Petrilli, No Child Left Behind,
Peter Lang Publishing (2006), p. 15.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Ms. Burmaster?
STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH BURMASTER, COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL
OFFICERS
Ms. Burmaster. Good morning.
Chairman Miller, Chairman Kennedy, Ranking Member McKeon,
Senator Isakson and members of the committee, thank you for
this opportunity to testify today on the No Child Left Behind
Act.
My name is Elizabeth Burmaster, and I am the elected
Wisconsin state superintendent of public instruction, and I am
testifying today in my capacity as the president of the Council
of Chief State School Officers, the CCSSO.
As the top education officials in every state, CCSSO's
members are immersed daily in the implementation of the No
Child Left Behind and have taken the lead in transforming No
Child Left Behind from policy to practice over the last 5
years, including leading the effort to develop state standards,
state accountability systems, state assessments, state data
systems and state teacher quality requirements, as well as
overseeing the public education systems of our states.
Chief state school officers are implementing this law, and
we want to strengthen it so that it works.
When Congress enacted the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001,
state education reform efforts were uneven. Five years later,
through strong state and local leadership, No Child Left
Behind's core foundational reforms are now widely in place.
Now, we have to build on those foundations with real
innovations and new investments to dramatically improve student
achievement, close achievement gaps and prepare all students in
our nation for success in an interconnected 21st-century world.
Now, to accomplish that goal, the reauthorized ESEA must
evolve to fit with the next stage of standards-based reform,
shifting from the law's current focus on prescriptive
compliance requirements to a dynamic law focused on providing
real incentives for innovative state and local models, along
with fair and meaningful accountability for results.
Innovation and rigor must be the foundation of the state
and federal partnership if we are to achieve our nation's
education goals. Innovation will strengthen this law and make
it more effective in accomplishing its true intent.
Congress cannot ask states to continue to drive the
education reform process without giving us the authority and
the capacity to lead. Chief state school officers have been the
first to see how rigid implementation of the law has worked
against the intent of the law in so many cases.
The next generation of No Child Left Behind must ensure
that state agencies have the ability to improve their education
systems by building on the strengths and the assets that have
proven to be successful in their state and at the local level.
Last year, CCSSO issued an ESEA policy statement announcing
three principles that must guide the reauthorization process
and provide the basis for a new state-federal partnership. And
this partnership must include: greater support and increased
focused on innovation in building on the foundations of
standards-based reform, including standards, assessments and
accountability systems; building state and local capacity to
improve learning opportunities for all students and to
intervene in consistently low-performing districts and schools;
and increased investment at the federal level in research,
evaluation, technical assistance and collaboration to help
inform state and local efforts to improve student achievement
and close achievement gaps.
In January, CCSSO announced eight recommendations to
strengthen the law. We believe these recommendations are
imperative if ESEA is to reflect the current, not the prior,
education landscape and, most importantly, to ensure that all
students are prepared in the future for post-secondary
education, work and citizenship in the 21st century.
In the United States, we have long held the belief that the
days of our children would be better than our own, and a
quality education is a civil right. The reauthorization of No
Child Left Behind holds the potential to make that dream a
reality for America's children.
The chief state school officers of this country have
submitted eight recommendations, which we believe will ensure
No Child Left Behind lives up to its intent and its promise for
America's children, and I have submitted those for the record.
Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Burmaster follows:]
Prepared Statement of Elizabeth Burmaster, President, Council of Chief
State School Officers
Chairman Miller, Chairman Kennedy, Ranking Member McKeon, and
Ranking Member Enzi, thank you for this opportunity to testify today
about strategies for improving the No Child Left Behind Act. My name is
Elizabeth Burmaster; I am the elected Wisconsin State Superintendent of
Public Instruction, and I am testifying today in my capacity as the
current President of the Council of Chief State School Officers
(CCSSO).
CCSSO is a nonpartisan, nationwide, nonprofit organization of
public officials who lead departments of elementary and secondary
education in the states, the District of Columbia, the Department of
Defense Education Activity, and five U.S. extra-state jurisdictions.
Our members are immersed daily in the implementation of the No Child
Left Behind Act (NCLB) and have taken the lead in transforming NCLB
from policy to practice over the last five years, including leading the
effort to develop state standards, state accountability systems, state
assessments, and state teacher quality requirements in addition to
meeting many other responsibilities.
When Congress enacted the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, state
education reform efforts were uneven. Five years later, through strong
state and local leadership, NCLB's core foundational reforms are widely
in place. Now, we must build on those foundations with real innovations
and new investments to dramatically improve student achievement, close
achievement gaps, and prepare all students and our nation for success
in an interconnected, 21st century world.
To accomplish that goal, the reauthorized Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) must evolve to fit with the next stage of
standards-based reform, shifting from the law's current focus on
prescriptive compliance requirements to a dynamic law focused on
providing real incentives for innovative state and local models--along
with fair and meaningful accountability for results. Innovation and
rigor must be the foundation of the state and federal partnership if we
are to achieve our nation's education goals. Reauthorization of ESEA
must support this partnership and empower state and local efforts to
prepare our children to compete in the 21st century.
Under NCLB, state education agencies implement the law's education
reforms by requiring, among other things, state assessments, state
accountability systems, state interventions, state teacher quality,
state standards, and state data systems. Congress cannot ask states to
continue to drive the education reform process without giving them
authority and capacity to lead. The U.S. Department of Education
strictly enforced the rigid prescription of the current language of the
law. Chief State School Officers have been the first to see how this
rigid prescription has worked against the intent of the law in many
cases. The intent is to raise student achievement and build community
support for reform efforts to close the gap in achievement that exists
throughout our country. The next generation of NCLB must ensure state
agencies have the ability to improve their education systems by
building on the strengths and assets that have proven to be successful
in their state at the local level.
Last year CCSSO issued a high level ESEA reauthorization policy
statement announcing three principles that must guide the
reauthorization process and provide the basis for a new state-federal
partnership. This partnership must include: (1) continued support and
increased focus on innovation and autonomy with regard to the
foundations of standards-based reform, (2) a greater focus on building
state and local capacity to improve learning opportunities for all
students and to intervene in consistently low-performing districts and
schools, and (3) increased investment in research, evaluation,
technical assistance, and collaboration to help inform state and local
efforts to improve student achievement and close achievement gaps.
In January, CCSSO announced eight recommendations meant to
operationalize these three core themes within the context of NCLB. We
believe these recommendations are necessary to update and improve ESEA
to reflect the current--not prior--education landscape and most
importantly to ensure that all students are prepared in the future for
postsecondary education, work, and citizenship in the 21st century.
The eight recommendations are as follows:
INNOVATIVE MODELS and PEER REVIEW: The reauthorized ESEA should
encourage, not stifle, innovation, and it should improve the peer
review process to make it a true state-federal partnership. In that
spirit, the law should be amended to remove and recast NCLB's current
``waiver'' authority to indicate that the Secretary ``shall'' approve
innovative models where states can demonstrate, through a revised peer
review process, good faith, educationally sound strategies to raise the
bar for standards-based reform. States must have a role in the
selection of qualified peers, and we should ensure the process focuses
on technical assistance, full transparency, real communication and
dialogue with states, consistency in peer review standards and outcomes
across states, timeliness of feedback and results, dissemination of
promising practices, and more.
ACCOUNTABILITY: The reauthorized ESEA should encourage use of a
variety of accountability models focused on individual student
achievement that build on adequate yearly progress (AYP) to promote
more valid, reliable, educationally meaningful accountability
determinations. Among other things, the new law should ensure states'
right to use true growth models to complement status measures (to
follow the progress of the same students over time at all performance
levels).
DIFFERENTIATE CONSEQUENCES: The reauthorized ESEA should encourage
a full range of rewards and consequences for districts and schools that
differ appropriately in nature and degree, based, for example, on
whether schools miss AYP by a little versus a lot. In that context, the
new law should permit states to exercise appropriate judgment and
differentiate both accountability determinations and consequences based
on sound evidence.
IMPROVE ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS: The reauthorized ESEA should encourage,
though not require, use of a variety of state and local assessment
models. CCSSO urges Congress to amend NCLB to permit states to promote
the use of multiple state and local assessments (including assessments
that can show growth at all levels) and ensure states' right to vary
the frequency and grade spans of assessments. CCSSO also urges Congress
to provide continued support for states to strengthen assessment
systems.
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES: The reauthorized ESEA should encourage
inclusion of students with disabilities in state assessment and
accountability systems in a manner that is most meaningful for the full
range of students with disabilities, based on ambitious but
educationally sound performance goals and measures. In this context,
the new law should permit use of alternate assessments measured against
alternate/modified achievement standards based on individualized growth
expectations across grade levels as needed for some students.
ELL STUDENTS: The reauthorized ESEA should encourage inclusion of
ELL students in state assessment and accountability systems in a manner
that is most meaningful for the full range of ELL students, based on
ambitious but educationally sound performance measures and goals. The
new law should permit states to properly include new immigrant ELL
students in school accountability based on multiple measures for
several years, where educationally appropriate. The law should also
allow the use of a full range of alternate assessments and value
individualized growth.
ENHANCE TEACHER QUALITY: The reauthorized ESEA should create
incentives for states to create the best teaching force in the world by
continuously improving teacher quality, supporting best-in-class
professional development, and encouraging use of individual pathways to
pedagogical and subject matter expertise. The law should incentivize
continued improvement in teacher quality in a meaningful manner.
Recommended changes include counting newly hired teachers (particularly
rural, special education and ELL teachers) as ``highly qualified'' when
they meet standards in their primary subject areas and are on a pathway
(of no more than three years) with regard to additional subjects based
on HOUSSE.
STRENGTHEN RESOURCES: The reauthorized ESEA should retain and
provide additional funds at the state level that appropriately reflect
the increased roles and responsibilities placed on states under ESEA.
The law should authorize additional, long-term, consistent funding for
state education agency action and intervention in underperforming
districts and schools. This includes key areas such as state
assessments (particularly including alternate assessments and English
proficiency assessments), state data systems, technology, and research
and development to inform state and district efforts.
As the leading education officials representing 49 states and five
territories, we intend to work hand-in-hand to achieve these eight
critical ESEA priorities, and we look forward to working with Congress
and our partners in the education community to implement the next
generation of standards-based reforms.
Moving from NCLB to every child a graduate will require strong
state leadership and action from all levels of government, and beyond.
This includes a new and meaningful state-federal partnership--one in
which states and districts constantly improve and innovate and are
supported by federal law. By working as true partners, we believe we
can make a major difference in the lives of every student.
These eight important areas represent our core reauthorization
priorities, but we acknowledge that other vital issues must be
addressed during the reauthorization process, and we are open to
lending our experiences and expertise to the broader debate about how
to improve and build upon No Child Left Behind.
Thank you for your leadership on these important issues. I look
forward to responding to any questions you may have.
______
Chairman Miller. Well, thank you very much.
And thank you to all of the panelists for your testimony.
We will begin with questions, and we will proceed until
noon, and we will just start in the order of members of
seniority here.
If I might begin, Mr. Casserly, you talk about the problem
of schools in need of improvement and the year-to-year
cascading sanctions, as you called them. And you have suggested
that there should be a longer window available so that schools
can in fact put in place a program that the district or school
believes is going to work and work their way back to AYP--let's
forget the definition of AYP for a moment--but that they would
work their way back into being compliant.
And also, Ms. Burmaster, you also mentioned about the
differentiated sanctions, and I was just wondering if you two
might comment. I don't know if you know one another's proposal
here, but I think you are addressing somewhat the same problem
and what happens to schools when they fail to make AYP.
Ms. Burmaster. Certainly. I am pleased that so many groups
are beginning to understand this problem, because a school that
misses AYP by a little faces the same as the school that misses
AYP by a lot. That, essentially, leads to a lack of credibility
for the law at the local level, and it leads to a
misidentification of schools in the eyes of the public, and
that works against us, when local communities begin to question
the credibility of this law.
And so we have made a recommendation for a differentiation
of consequences under the law so that states could address
that, to have some innovative ways of dealing and addressing
the highest-needs schools.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Casserly?
Mr. Casserly. Yes. Let me not address the issue of
overidentification for a second but what might replace this
notion of ever-changing or cascading sanctions.
As the committee knows, when No Child Left Behind was
passed, it put schools in school improvement I where a set of
actions are required, then school improvement II where another
set of actions were required, and then corrective action where
another set of actions are required, then restructuring.
We have discovered that one of the problems that at least
urban schools have, I suspect lots of other kinds of schools as
well, is that they are chasing an ever-changing set of
activities and procedures without ever having the time over the
course of that year, sometimes they have less than a full
school year, to implement the procedures in order to see any
effect before they fall into the next set of sanctions.
So what we were proposing was combining school improvement
I, school improvement II and corrective action into a single 3-
year phase devoted solely to school improvement and
intervention, where the school would be required to spend the
equivalent of 30 percent of its Title 1 money on professional
development, other intervention and instructional systems,
benchmark assessments and other kinds of things that we know
that schools that are turning around use.
At the end of that 3-year period, if you still could not
make improvement in at least 2 of the 3 years, one of two
things would happen--I guess, one of three things: One, if you
did make improvement, you would go back to the beginning, kind
of like in current law. However, if you didn't make
improvement, we would look at the degree of improvement, how
persistent or pervasive the failure was.
If you hadn't made improvement in two of the three core
subjects and that failure involved half or more of the students
in that school, then you would fall into a situation where you
had to reconstitute that school or close it.
If the nature of the failure, however, misses--more to Ms.
Burmaster's point--if the nature of the failure only involved a
subgroup or two but that did not involve the majority of the
students in that school, then you would be required to do a set
of activities that related just to the failure of those
subgroups or students.
So we keep the sanctions in the law, but we give the
schools time to put in place an instructional system to raise
student achievement and to bear down on it in a way that the
current law doesn't really allow you time to do.
Ms. Burmaster. Senator Miller, could I----
Chairman Miller. Yes.
Ms. Burmaster [continuing]. Comment along those lines?
What we are hearing from our membership also, the other
chiefs, is that this would be an example in this area of
perhaps less prescription on the part of the federal government
and allowing for innovation at the state level.
For instance, this missing AYP by a little or a lot. You
could have a school under the law miss AYP because 94 percent
test participation, as opposed to 95 percent test
participation. And you could have another school that missed
reading and math proficiency for all students. Those are two
very different ways of missing AYP.
And if the states had the flexibility to really look
carefully at the real data of those schools and then be able to
address intervention involving in local school districts
parents, the community in the kinds of interventions that would
perhaps best help that school in delivering on AYP, continuing,
perhaps, they would want to have an extended calendar or offer
summer school or----
Chairman Miller. I am going to cut you off just because of
the time. We have a lot of members here. But thank you very
much.
I am just concerned that 3 years is a long time in a young
child's life, and the question is to get that school to
perform.
Mr. McKeon?
Mr. McKeon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The more I talk to people about this, the more difficult
the task I see is before us. We started hearings last year. I
think we held four here in Washington, we held one in Chicago.
And then I have done quite a bit of traveling around the
country in different congressional districts, meeting with
people, pulling together groups of parents, teachers,
principals, superintendents, board members and trying to find
from them what we should do to improve the act.
The process here: We pass an act, then we reauthorize the
act, and that is the opportunity to address things that--we
start out with an idea and by the time it gets to the end of
the road, after the regulations and the implementation and all
the process is met, it might be totally different from what we
started out to do. And then we find that we have made mistakes
or things don't go exactly the way we figured and so we have to
come back and readdress those.
We all, I believe, have the same goal, and that is to give
every single child an opportunity to reach their full potential
in realizing the American dream.
In every one of the meetings I held, similar things came
up: What can we do to have more supplemental services, how
could that be addressed more, how could that be improved so
that everybody knows the opportunities are there? What can we
do about improving English-language-learners?
What can we do with special ed, where you have different
columns and maybe one student, even, could either pull you down
or lift you up in two or three different columns that would
have quite a bit of change there? If you have a female minority
special ed student, it could pull you up or push you down in
those different columns.
Growth models, how that could be used to where you really
are testing students against themselves instead of a class that
is following along behind them. Qualified teachers versus
effective teachers or both, how do they fit the mix.
National standards even came up a few times, and you talked
about it in your testimony today. I think that is a problem,
but the Constitution spells out what our responsibilities are
and what the state responsibilities are, and I don't know that
we have the votes to change the Constitution nor the will to do
so.
And when we are sitting around talking in groups like this,
we are all coming from specialized segments. I sat on a local
school board for 9 years and had lots of frustration.
I am from California. Our frustration was more with
Sacramento than it was with Washington. And I found that there
is a lot of misunderstanding. Some people blame the federal
law, when it is really the state implementation of it that is
in conflict. And then you sitting at the state level worry
about the federal government, the impositions.
Specifically, I had a meeting this morning with some
parents from D.C. who are more concerned about parental choice
and how they can get their students out of some schools and
into other schools.
Mr. Henderson, do you believe that the parents of minority
students in schools that are identified as in need of
improvement are receiving adequate and timely information about
the supplemental education services that they are entitled to
under the law? Do you believe they are receiving that?
Mr. Henderson. Mr. McKeon, let me answer your question with
a slightly broader perspective, because I am a native
Washingtonian. I am a product of the public school system here,
as well as graduate and law schools outside of Washington. But
I am familiar with the school system in great detail, and my
own children were products of the school system.
Let me say to you that, as someone who grew up with one
foot in a world of segregated America where apartheid was the
law of the land and who started school at the time that the
Supreme Court decided the Brown case, I look back over the last
50 years with horror and dismay as I recognize that the promise
of Brown has not been fulfilled, not only in Washington, D.C.
but in school districts all around the country.
The great irony of the United States being the world's
beacon of democracy: having a school system which is subpar in
its nation's capital, or within a several-mile radius of the
Capitol you have over 100 schools that fail to meet the
adequate yearly progress requirement of No Child Left Behind.
That is an indictment, which, in my view, speaks for itself.
The issue isn't so much timely information, although let's
put that in the mix of things to be considered. And you have
outlined, I think, a very complex problem of how you tackle
what has been a difficult interaction of issues with respect to
providing quality education.
But I guess I would say the following: It is important to
disaggregate the requirements of the law, number one, to
recognize that there are certain focus efforts which are
priority efforts, Title 1 being an example of that.
Title 1 was never intended to equalize funding between rich
and poor school districts. That is a problem to be left to the
states. This should be providing additional resources that
can't be provided at the state level. There has to be a focused
recognition that the needs of students go beyond what this
statute will address.
For example----
Chairman Miller. I am going to ask you to wrap up.
Mr. Henderson [continuing]. The State Child Information
Health Insurance Program is up for reauthorization, and that
needs to be a part of the mix. You can't have kids preparing
for tests when they can't get eye exams, when they are
uncovered by insurance.
My point is this: It is a more complex issue than your
question would suggest. It involves many more factors than
simply an adequate array of information.
And I would urge those who are most committed to carrying
out the requirements of the law that they follow the law, that
they follow the law and provide resources where necessary, as
the law requires.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Senator Kennedy?
Senator Kennedy. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Let me just sort of follow along a little bit on what Mr.
Henderson mentioned and something also that Reg Weaver
mentioned, and that is what is happening in terms of the school
dropouts, or the fact that where you have many, as Mayor Street
mentioned when the meeting of the mayors--they have 175,000
children go to the Philadelphia systems and 80,000 of them--
80,000 of them--sometime in the year do not show up in school.
We heard 20,000 in Cleveland, Ohio, these children aren't
attending schools.
And in my hearings around my own state of Massachusetts, I
have been absolutely aroused by the fact that so many of the
schools that are in an impoverished area, the statements and
the comments of teachers that say the problems of poverty have
become more intense than they were 5 years ago, that the
parents are more played out than they were 5 years ago in being
able to participate, the schools have deteriorated over the
period of 5 years ago.
And whether we are coming down and looking at all of these
points I mentioned in my opening statement, I believe very
deeply, how we are really going to begin to get a grip on
something which is a matter of national importance, a national
urgency. We certainly recognized that in the 1960s that we are
going to say impoverished children in this country are going to
be a matter of national urgency and a problem.
And I am not sure if we do all the things that have been
recommended, and it is a remarkable similarity of things that
have been recommended during this, recognize the complexity
that we have in getting good teachers in underserved schools
and keeping them there. With all of the different
recommendations that we have, we have seen some examples.
But how worked up should we be on this? I will watch the
time, but if each of you could take a quick crack at it,
recognizing I have only got probably a couple more minutes
left.
Governor Barnes? And then maybe we will go down quickly.
Mr. Barnes. It is a problem that you should be concerned
about. Forty percent in Georgia never graduate.
Let me tell you the reason children leave school. The
reason they leave school is they become frustrated at not being
able to do the work in high school. Our kids do very well
nationally and internationally at the 4th grade level. They
fall off the end of the Earth at the 8th grade; they drop out
at the 9th grade.
In my view--I want to say this is not in the report,
because it was not our focus--and there is a lot of attention
on high schools these days. I think we need to remake middle
schools, because what happens is children cannot, particularly
in math, they can't make the transition, or are having
difficulty making the transition, from a quantitative system of
arithmetic to a qualitative system of algebra. And so they
become frustrated and they drop out in the 9th grade.
We know that if a child completes algebra in the 8th grade,
successfully completes algebra in the 8th grade, they have a
two-thirds chance of graduating from high school. If they are
reading on the grade level by age 4, they have a 60 percent
chance.
Mr. Henderson. I would associate myself with the governor's
remarks.
I would also add, though, Senator, as you, yourself,
pointed out, the effects of concentrated poverty today are more
serious, significant than they have ever been.
I mentioned before that there are collateral programs like
the State Children's Health Insurance Program that needs to be
funded. Well, I will say to you that the crisis is more severe
than I think you, even yourself, have identified.
When you are losing 50 percent of black students, over 50
percent of Latino, Native American students, and when only 75
percent of white students are graduating from high school, you
have a pending crisis of immense proportion. And 30 years from
now, as we begin drawing on the workforce of tomorrow, that
problem will become even more acute.
Mr. Rothkopf. Yes. I agree really with the governor and Mr.
Henderson.
I think one other thing we might be looking at is
increasing, if you will, the relevance of high school. Many of
the dropouts--and we hear this from our chamber members around
the country--many of the dropouts have trouble seeing the
relevance of what they are doing in high school to, if you
will, the job market and what they do afterwards. They don't
recognize the need for it.
So I think we may need to focus somewhat more on career and
technical education. I am not talking about reducing standards
or the rigor of those standards, but I think we need to have
much more of a focus on what happens, at least to those
youngsters who aren't thinking about going on to college or
post-secondary, as to the relevance of what is being learned in
high school.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Casserly?
Mr. Casserly. Yes. I would also like to associate myself
with Mr. Rothkopf's remarks. I think a lot of this is students
just not seeing the future for themselves in the work that they
are doing or the work that they think they might ultimately be
doing. And we have to do a better job at the high school level
of making that connection.
Chairman Miller. Mr. McElroy?
Mr. McElroy. I would concentrate my resources, which are
limited, at the other end of the spectrum. I would start with a
good, quality early childhood education so that the gap that
exists when these kids come to school from high-poverty areas
would be lessened or reduced or eliminated. I would put
resources into special services to kids who fell behind the
first, second, third year of school.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Weaver?
Mr. Weaver. We need a comprehensive approach. We have a 12-
point dropout plan that I certainly would encourage you to look
at, a comprehensive approach. We need community engagement, we
need resources for health care and other areas that impact
children's learning or children dropping out of school.
Chairman Miller. Ms. Burmaster?
Ms. Burmaster. It begins with early childhood to minimize
the adverse effects of poverty, and then by the time a child is
12 and they can vote with their feet by attending or not, it
gets to student engagement. That requires professional
development for teachers to know how to make sense for the
young person as to what they are learning in the classroom, how
it applies to the real world.
Chairman Miller. Senator Isakson?
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Chairman Miller.
I want to commend Governor Barnes's response to that last
question, and it is a reminder to all of us that we are talking
about the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind. The kids
that are in the fifth year of No Child Left Behind today, kids
that started under kindergarten 5 years ago, are in the 4th
grade. If we can get it reauthorized, do some of the tweaking
and improvements, some of the things that are recognized, 4
years from now we will have kids leaving middle school, going
to high school, under 8 years of No Child Left Behind.
I think that will have a remarkable impact on the dropout
rate if they are competing at math and reading at grade level.
I commend Governor Barnes in his testimony.
Governor Barnes, you quoted Don Iglesias of San Jose who
has a great quote, which I want to read: ``Experience in
credentials do not always equate to a teacher that effectively
delivers instruction, and the 'highly qualified' definition has
been problematic in No Child Left Behind.''
That quote begs alternative certification as some
consideration for an effective teacher. What considerations to
alternatively certify a teacher as effective would you
recommend?
Mr. Barnes. Well, there is no question that alternative
certification has to be part of the production of teachers in
the future.
Our problem in teaching is more of a retention problem than
it is of training. For example, we do have shortages, and we
are going to have shortages, but 40 percent of the teachers
leave in 3 years, 50 percent of them leave in 5 years. So you
have to have a better retention, and that goes to work quality
and some wages, even when you do the summaries and the studies,
they say that it is working conditions more than anything else.
Secondly, states like New Jersey, 40 percent of the
teachers in New Jersey are alternatively qualified. I do think
that we have to make sure that they are qualified as to subject
matter, but we also have to--and the byproduct of growth models
is being able to use and identify teachers that not should be
labeled--and I agree with Mr. McElroy and Reg Weaver--not that
should be labeled in any way, but should be helped with
professional development. And that is part of the retention.
We have had a very successful alternative. Of course, you
were chair of the school board and you know we started it when
you chaired the school board, and then we expanded it when I
was governor. There are people that want to teach. The first
group that we had, we had 4,000 people that applied for 1,500
seats to be alternative certified. Two were physicians, three
were engineers, one had a Ph.D. in child literature from Oxford
University--not the one in Oxford, Georgia, but the one over in
England. [Laughter.]
And they wanted to be teachers, but they did not want to go
through all the pedagogy.
Now, should they be taught pedagogy? They should, but there
are more ways to learn it than just simply having to sit in the
classroom. So I think alternative certification is a thought
whose time has come.
Senator Isakson. Thank you for that answer.
And just one other question, and I think you inferred it.
When you were talking about the growth model--and I am very
intrigued by that, because, as Ms. Burmaster said, right now,
we have two alternatives and that is you are good or you are
bad, and there is nowhere in between on the needs improvement
assessment.
Did I hear you say also that a properly calibrated growth
model might also help us not to lose teachers who are leaving
the system?
Mr. Barnes. Yes. What happens is the natural byproduct of
the data system. If you have a growth model, you have to have a
data system that measures where children are where they start
and where they end so that you can see if they have made more
than a year's progress in a year. That is the whole definition
of growth model.
When you do that, one of the natural byproducts of it is
that you see which teachers are having the greatest learning
gains. And what we recommend is that you take the 25 percent
that are having the least learning gains, we don't brand them
and we don't say that the test is the sole test, but that you
concentrate your professional development in the area. And the
effectiveness, the growth learning, should not be more than 50
percent in determining that.
Let me say one other thing, too, about growth models, and
this came up, too, about misidentification. We heard a lot
about two groups in the disaggregated groups. If we could just
do something with these two groups, we would make AYP, and all
of you know what it is: English-language-learners and special-
needs kids.
We looked at that, we examined it in great depth. What we
said in English-language-learners is we kept the time period of
3 years the same but we said that you could average over the 3
years, so you didn't have a new group each year. So it gave
some relief on AYP.
On special-needs kids, we adopted basically what DOE has
adopted: One percent of them could have alternative methods of
assessment and another 1 percent could have supplemental
assistance in the assessment.
Now, the reason we did this--and, listen, we heard some
horrifying stories from parents too about this, who they
thought it was unfair to put their child to meeting the
assessment--is the danger of forgetting these kids again. If we
don't require them to be counted in the disaggregated, we don't
have to worry about them. Then these special-needs kids and
English-language-learners become invisible children.
And so they have to remain in the--I suggest to you, and
you are going to get a lot of pressure on this and a lot of
discussion--they have to remain in the mix of what is being
counted. Yes, give some flexibility on the growth, but don't
make them invisible.
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Governor.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Congressman Kildee?
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have always believed that education is a local function,
a state responsibility, but a very, very important federal
concern. It is a federal concern for two reasons: where we live
in a very mobile society, people move around the nation, and we
are competing in a global economy, so it has to be a very
important federal concern.
But how can we prod the states and the local education
agencies to do more? I ask that because I left teaching in
Flint, Michigan, on January 1, 1965, when I was elected to the
state legislature. That is the same year that ESEA was passed.
The federal government has increased its involvement, its
federal concern, has demonstrated its federal concern a great
deal in those years. But the quality of education in Flint,
Michigan--not the quality of teaching, the quality of
education--in Flint, Michigan, has deteriorated since 1965.
Along with the increased federal concern, what can we do to
prod, encourage the LEAs, the local education agencies, and the
state education agencies, or the state to do more to address
what is happening? We have had some tragedies in Flint,
Michigan, some real tragedies.
Governor, I will start with you.
Mr. Barnes. I should let somebody else talk.
Well, first, you elect good leaders that understand that
education is the building block of our future prosperity. I am
going to speak in common parlance of something down my part of
the country. Textile mills are never coming back to Georgia,
they are gone. And the new product of America--leaders have to
understand, the new product of America must be innovation and
skills. The new currency is not dollars and cents; it is
knowledge and learning. So, first, you have to have leaders
that understand that.
Secondly, you have to have accountability. North Carolina
has made the greatest progress since 1990 in education of any
state in the nation. Did they have all the money in the world?
No. They have had more. They had great leaders like Jim Hunt
and Terry Sanford and others that saw that education was the
building blocks of that new economy. But what they did is, the
leadership instilled the need and then they provided more
funds, but they provided accountability--accountability for
higher standards.
Let me just say one last thing about the standards, because
I think that is part of it too. When I was a kid growing up in
Mableton, Georgia--I know you would never think I was from the
South--but when I was a kid growing up in Mableton, Georgia, I
saw that I was going to compete against kids in Marietta,
Georgia, or Macon, Georgia. Children now that graduate compete
against kids in Beijing and New Delhi and Berlin.
And, yes, I do think that we have to take a look at some
national standards. Now, they shouldn't be mandatory--goes back
to the issue that you have--but in math and science we have
gone on the international math and science test from 17th to
22nd in the last few years. We can't do that and remain
prosperous as a people.
And what we recommend in the commission in regard to that
is that NAEP, under the same framework, that we devise tests
testing the major subjects of math, science and otherwise that
NAEP devises. And then if a state adopts those tests that meets
the national standards, then it is automatic approval at the
DOE that they are married. They don't have to adopt the
national standards, but there is truth in advertising.
And I will use my own state as a good example. My own state
says that on their test they administer, 80 percent of the
children are proficient. You know what NAEP says at 4th grade
in reading? Twenty-six percent. My own state says that 80
percent of the children in the 4th grade math are proficient,
but NAEP says 30 percent.
That is not truth in advertising. It does not instill in
those parents and voters the wherewithal to go out there and
kick their public officials to raise the standards in Flint,
Michigan, because they are being told everything is okay.
And so what the new standards would do: If you don't adopt
the new standards, you don't have to, but the DOE is going to
print every year to 2 years how you compare on the national
standards, so the parents can become involved and push their
elected officials to raise the standards and do better. And it
can happen.
I will hush. I could go on, but I will hush.
Mr. Kildee. Mr. Casserly, do you have any comments on that?
Mr. Casserly. Well, my first comment is, I am sorry that
Flint is not part of our group, because I think we might be
able to help them a little bit.
Mr. Kildee. Come visit us.
Mr. Casserly. But one of the things that we are learning
from other urban school districts about how it is that they are
improving achievement is pretty consistent from district to
district. Now, it doesn't mean we have reached the promised
land in terms of student achievement; we haven't. It is still
low, we still have gaps, but we are making headway.
What these faster-improving urban school districts are
doing is built around a clear, sustained agenda for student
improvement, clear goals that everybody knows that they are
supposed to meet, accountability systems, as the governor said,
by which the adults are held responsible for the achievement of
the kids, strong curriculum aligned to very good, high-level
state standards or national standards, professional development
systems on the curriculum and good instruction, ways in which
instruction is monitored to make sure that good academic rigor
is sustained in the classrooms, good data systems, regular
assessments and a clear focus on some of your lowest-performing
students.
All of those things locked together systemically is what is
really producing the achievement progress in a lot of these big
city school districts, and Flint might want to take a look at
some of those.
Mr. Weaver. Mr. Chair, I think also safe and orderly
schools, qualified and certified teachers, state-of-the-art
technology, parental involvement, counselors, smaller class
sizes, challenging curriculum--those are the things that we
know work in schools. Wherever you find high degrees of
success, you will find almost each and every one of those
things existing.
And so I would suggest that we look at the conditions that
exist for 85 percent of the richest parents and their children,
which is the public school, and implement those same kinds of
conditions in Flint and every other system, whether it is
rural, urban or suburban, and I think that you will have
success.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Reggie. You are always welcome back
to Flint.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Burmaster. Congressman, could I add also, I would be in
full agreement with my colleagues, and I would also add quality
early childhood education to the list.
Mr. Rothkopf. If I might just add one factor that hasn't
been talked about and that is, we think, a critical one, and
that is the need for the K through 12 system--and it goes to
the standards--to align itself with higher education and with
the business community.
I think there has been a disconnect between what K through
12 is teaching and then what is needed to get a good job, a job
in your community, as you start changing what is going on and
the nature of your economy, and also focus on the business
community as well as higher education.
Those groups need to sit down, and part of our proposal is
that there be incentives provided to align those interests. We
think that is a critical nature and a critical element of what
has to be done.
Mr. Henderson. I have to add one last point, though, Mr.
Kildee, which is that the system you have described----
Chairman Miller. Do it quickly.
Mr. Henderson [continuing]. 93 percent funding from the
state, 7 percent from the federal government, moves too slowly
to bring the kinds of changes that the system requires. And it
will only happen once we redefine the nature of the problem.
This has to be based on rational self-interest, rightly
understood at the state level. This is about national security,
it is about the global economy. And we are not going to be able
to frame this issue exclusively around questions of equity and
expect the states to do more than they have already done.
So it has to involve much more of a recharacterization of
the nature of the problem and it has got to be federalized in
ways that thus far feds and states have been unwilling to do.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Hoekstra?
Mr. Hoekstra. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We are heading down a path we are going to have a national
curriculum. We have got math and reading. You are arguing for
including science; my state is arguing for including history,
geography, government, econ and civics. Some are talking about
adding technology, talking about adding engineering.
We are going to expand the level of tests. I think there is
strong encouragement from this panel to add NAEP as well as
science testing so that we can compare it. We will set the
standards.
I saw in some of the comments here that we have got to have
national standards but not federal standards. Give me a break.
How can you have national standards but not federal? And then
we will put in accountability measures.
It is amazing to me that we have people like the chamber
here today talking about federal schools instead of public
schools.
Ms. Burmaster, you are the only one that I see up there
that has any concept of freedom. If we define education where
we are, I don't think anybody in their opening statements,
unless I missed it, talked about parents.
Now, we did ``Education at Crossroads,'' we went across the
country, we talked to people at your level, we talked to state
administrators, we talked to school administrators. But the
person that had the most passion for the highest-quality
education opportunity to their kids were parents.
And in this whole discussion about reauthorizing No Child
Left Behind, we have made all of you beggars to Washington for
more rules, more regulation, fix this rule, add this in, tell
us what to do, because without federal involvement we are not
going to do it.
Again, Ms. Burmaster, at least you were bold enough to say,
``Give me some more flexibility, because I think I can do this
better than what--''
Ms. Burmaster. Give me some more flexibility, because I
think I can do this better.
Mr. Hoekstra. Absolutely.
Ms. Burmaster. I am speaking for the chief state school
officers.
Mr. Hoekstra. Yes. And I think if we gave you more
flexibility and we empowered parents and local school
districts, it might be amazing what would happen.
I can only find that if this is the model that our business
community is articulating and advocating for federalizing our
public schools, I can't wait to see their role for making us
competitive in the world because they can only ask for more
federal guidelines, rules to get where we need to go.
Because, clearly, that is the way that it works for our
most important asset in the country, which is our kids, and if
we are going to delegate the role of educating our kids to the
federal government, it would only make sense that we would
delegate the role for our autonomy to the federal government as
well.
Ms. Burmaster, what do you see parental choice in this
process? If you want more flexibility, does your organization
or does the state of Wisconsin see empowering parents in this
process at any place?
Ms. Burmaster. Yes, the organization I want to speak for.
Mr. Hoekstra. Right, okay.
Ms. Burmaster. The organization saw an opportunity again
for more parental involvement and the differentiation of
consequences. In the state of Wisconsin, we held listening
sessions throughout the state over the course of the years,
thousands of citizens, parents, educators, business leaders
from the state, and it was clear that people did understand
that this is a local issue.
We can test all we want, testing the disaggregation of the
data, the intent of this law, the attention that has been
brought to this very, very serious issue that our long-term
economic security, as a state, as community, as a nation, the
future of our democracy rests on closing this gap.
People understand that, and this law has gone a long way in
creating that sense of urgency. But the work has to be done at
the local level, and parents must be involved. And parents do
have to have the option to be determining what will contribute
to the success of their children.
So the chiefs saw that if there could perhaps be, when you
are looking at a school, that a district might even have a
parent advisory board that could be looking at making
recommendations for what kind of interventions. They have to be
involved in the interventions themselves.
I understand the discussion that we are having here, but I
appreciate that you have captured really what is the sense of
urgency among those of us who are implementing this law and in
the schools on a regular basis, and that is that you have to
bring communities to get, and it takes more than the education
system working to ensure that we are going to overcome some of
the contributors to the achievement gap.
And poverty is probably one of the main issues. And so we
are going to have to work in collaboration, community agencies,
social service agencies.
Mr. Hoekstra. Thank you.
Mr. Weaver. Mr. Chair, when he mentioned about not hearing
in the opening statements any mention of parents, well, you
know what I did, I started to look through my opening statement
to see if in fact--and I saw McElroy do the same thing.
But just because we didn't mention it doesn't mean that we
don't believe that it is important. We absolutely believe that
parental involvement is extremely important. And if you will
take a look at our positive agenda, you will see that it is up
there in terms of importance.
What I hear from parents and what I see from parents when I
talk with them, what they want is for their children to be
successful. What they want is for their children to go to a
school that is safe and orderly. What they want for their
children is to have a qualified and certified teacher.
And so anything that does not allow them to have those
kinds of things is wrong. And I think that we should do
everything we can to make sure that parents in all areas of
this country, whether it is urban, rural or suburban, have what
they need.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Payne?
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
Let me thank the panel for your insights.
You know, I sometimes get amused at this question about the
country being concerned about what is happening throughout our
nation. When World War II began, we found that, believe it or
not, most of our young men going into the Army were
malnourished, and so it started the lunch program in elementary
and secondary schools. It was a national defense thing. If we
left it up to every individual town and state, we probably
would still have people who were malnourished, as we found out
in World War II, and we couldn't put an army together.
When we found out that the Russians had put the Sputnik on
and they were way ahead in math and science, even though they
were one of the poorest countries at that time, we turned
around and started the national defense. We had to put in a
war-sounding bill, because we said the National Education Act
probably wouldn't pass. We called it the National Defense Bill,
and we were able to get educational loans for kids, minority
kids who couldn't get loans to go to college.
When we looked at Title 1, we found that schools were just
ignoring poor kids, and that is why Title 1 began in 1965.
And so my point is, as my friend who has left has said, we
should keep the federal government out. Government which
governs least is best, stays the same. Evidently, we don't have
the authority or the will on local levels. We wouldn't have to
have had a Brown v. the Board of Education if we had the will
throughout our country.
And so I really get amused at people saying, ``Let's keep
away from national involvement.''
Also, the folks that are so interested in parental choice,
I see a new bill is going to be introduced about vouchers
again. The ones who are the main proponents, I have never heard
them talk about vouchers in their districts. It seems like the
voucher proposals are people who somehow feel that this is the
only way we can do it. However, their public schools are great.
But let's do it in the urban schools.
I don't hear people talk about vouchers in my district,
which is very diverse. The richest community in the United
States is in my district, and, believe it or not, just about
the lowest amount of homeownership, 22 percent, is in another
part of the district where average homeownership in this
country is about 75 percent. But the people up there in that
richest community, they are not talking about school choice.
They have school choice because they have it right there in
their own community.
So there is a lot of hypocrisy that is going on.
As a former teacher, I decided to start in secondary school
and taught at now Mount Shabazz High School in Newark; it was
Southside High School then. Stayed there for 3 or 4 years,
decided to go into junior high because I wasn't satisfied at
what was coming to the high school. Taught in the so-called
middle junior high school for 3 or 4 years and then went down
to elementary, believe it or not, just to see about how it was.
A few things were the same. One, the attitude of the
teachers. We would go to a school where teachers felt the kids
could learn, would put things together, and the kids had a
better attitude. We would go to other schools where they didn't
care, teachers that didn't care, and the kids didn't learn.
Let me just say get quickly before my time runs out, I
guess it is about out, we have a problem with qualified
teachers, period, no question about it, substandard schools.
I just would like--and I want to associate myself with Wade
Henderson--to talk about a total program. You are not going to
have a kid who died in Washington, D.C., because of a toothache
and couldn't get a doctor to see him because he was on Medicaid
and couldn't get a dentist to see the boy is dead. Here in
Washington, D.C., in the view of the Capitol of the world's
greatest democracy. Makes no sense.
So my question is, how can we get--what do you think, maybe
Reg and the president of AFT and Wade--qualified teachers in
the hardest-to-handle schools? What can we do to try to get
them, since we do find that in the toughest places to teach we
have, generally speaking, teachers who leave to go to other
districts when they get an opportunity?
For anyone who would like a stab at that.
Mr. McElroy. I will take a shot at that, if I may.
Mr. Payne. Thank you.
Mr. McElroy. Thank you for those comments.
I think Governor Barnes said earlier, and it is important
to remember, that we bring a lot of people into the profession.
We lose them very quickly. Lose 50 percent of them in 5 years;
actually, in large urban districts, we lose 50 percent of them
in 3 years.
So the issue is, how do you retain those people in urban
centers, in hard-to-staff schools?
And the question is, look, professional development, the
kind of professional development you talk about was done in the
1960s, frankly, under the National Science Foundation Act, and
there were grants for teachers to work during the summer to go
through those programs. We should reinstitute that, it would
seem to me, or we should look at that.
The second thing is, you have to provide incentives to
people to work in those schools.
The third thing is that you have to create the environment
that we were talking about originally around the school. What
happens when the kid comes there? Are there provisions for
medical care? Are there provisions for a decent, not only
medical care, but nutrition programs?
And we are phonies in a lot of ways about what we think
about school. We say to the kid, ``Look, it is the most
important thing you do in your life,'' and then not too far
from this building, there are some of the most decrepit schools
in the country. You can't say to a kid that education is the
most important thing you do and then have them walk into a
building where he knows it isn't.
So there are a lot of factors here.
Mr. Weaver. In addition to what Ed said, mentoring and
induction programs. You know, sometimes we are very cruel to
new teachers coming into the system. We put them into a system
with overcrowded classrooms, no help and then expect them to be
successful. It is not going to work like that.
Also, give them the respect, the support, make sure they
have an atmosphere that is safe and orderly and give them some
pay, and you will be able to get people coming into these areas
that we typically don't have them coming into now.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Castle?
Mr. Castle. Let me thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is an excellent panel with a diversity of opinions and
views but coming out, in my judgment, with the same conclusion,
and that is that No Child Left Behind is fundamentally very
good for education but may need some changes or shifts, and for
that we are very appreciative.
I think we, as Democrats and Republicans up here, feel the
same way, that we do need to continue to move in this
direction.
Let me ask a question. I am not sure if any of you are
really experts on this or not, but one of the areas that has
been suggested that we are now trying, through the Department
of Education, is this so-called growth model, that instead of
having just adequate yearly progress, having a growth model for
schools in which adequate yearly progress may be too much of a
reach in 1 year.
I would think it is very likely this may be included in
whatever we end up doing in No Child Left Behind this year. But
I wonder if any of you have any comments on the various pilots
that are going on right now or any other thoughts about what
should or should not be included in some sort of a growth model
for measuring school improvement from the beginning of the year
to the end of the year.
Mr. Barnes. We do recommend a growth model. The DOE is, of
course, doing the pilots, as you set forth, and, really, in
talking to Secretary Spellings and how they chose the pilots,
remember you have got to have a data system. Growth models
don't work unless you have a data system. So what limited her
from granting more waivers was lack of a data system.
It is not inexpensive. We recommend $400 million over the
next 4 years, $100 million a year, and of course that is only
going to be a portion of it. In Georgia, it costs us about $70
million to get the data system, because every child has to have
a unique identifier. Now, the growth models shouldn't hide how
you are really making progress.
And what we recommend is that you have to be on grade level
within 5 years. In other words, you have to be making--you just
don't put a growth model out there and say, ``Well, they made a
little progress over''--that you have to make more than a
year's progress in a year and that within 3 years you have to
be on grade level.
We believe, and we talked much about it, and the two school
officers were very much in favor of it also when we heard
testimony from them. We think this will soften some of the AYP
harshness that you have been hearing about, that it will not
misclassify and demoralize a school that is making good
progress and probably going to make it in a little while but
didn't make it this year.
So we are very much in favor of growth models.
Mr. Henderson. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
sees growth models as potentially having useful and important
contribution to be made, but I think the pilots that are
currently under way within the department we have not fully
assessed. We do have some concerns.
We think you can measure subgroups, cohorts in a way that
can be very effective, but we are concerned, for example, about
how you measure English language learners who make rapid
progress over a short period of time and then have to be
factored into a larger model.
I guess what we are waiting to see is how the department
conducts its pilot programs. We would like to evaluate them
before we issue a definitive view.
Mr. Rothkopf. Congressman, I think our view of growth
models is, yes, they ought to be tried, they are being tried.
Our concern would be that if there is an effort to move
away from a rigorous group of standards and also to try and
move away from that 2014 deadline. No one has mentioned that
this morning. We think it is critical to stay with the
requirements of 2014. As we know in the business communities
and many parts of our economy, if you set a standard, you have
got to stick with it and try and meet it and not slip from
that.
So growth models, if they are applied in a rigorous,
systematic way, with the right kind of data, fine, but if they
are a way to get around the statute and find ways to not meet
the important goal that you all set 5 years ago, then we would
not favor it.
Mr. Casserly. Just one point very quickly: I suspect the
Department of Education growth models aren't going to really
tell this committee very much, in part, because they have only
been approved on a couple of states, and they are growth models
that are automatically tagged to the 2013-2014 deadline.
So I would urge the committee to look a little more
broadly, not necessarily to get rid of the 2013-2014 deadline,
I agree with Mr. Rothkopf's point, but let's look a little more
broadly at the various possibilities of models here and not
lock ourselves in just to the ones that the U.S. Department of
Education is testing.
The Delaware model, by the way, I think is particularly
promising.
Mr. McElroy. I would agree with that. I also agree that it
is principally data-driven, and so you need to have the data in
order to do this.
I would also say that the current pilot programs are not
flexible enough. In other words, there has to be some
understanding that there could be a variety of different ways
to assess and measure growth.
Mr. Weaver. We support the growth model as well. It is just
a matter of coming together to determine what kind of growth
model are you talking about, what it is going to take to have
something incorporated as law that everybody can pass.
Ms. Burmaster. The first recommendation of the chief state
school officers is that they be able to submit status and
growth models upon peer review, to be found statistically valid
and reliable so that we could indeed address this very
important area of really being able to look at individualized
student growth over time, which is the key to closing the gap
in achievement.
Mr. Castle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, panel.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Andrews?
Mr. Andrews. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the panel.
Mr. Chairman, 6 years ago when we started discussing the
first draft of No Child Left Behind, there was an argument
about whether accountability standards should be linked to
Title 1 money. I think it is a measure of progress that today's
discussion is about how they should be linked to Title 1 money.
I think that is more than just a rhetorical achievement.
I want to ask a question about how AYP is calculated and
invite any of the panel to answer it.
Today, in my school district, the 8th graders are taking
the New Jersey standardized test, the math section of it. And
when the results come in, their performance will be measured
against last year's 8th graders, this year's 9th graders.
It is entirely conceivable that because this year's 8th
graders are a very high-achievement class, my daughter is in
the class, and last year's 8th graders may not have been as
adept, but the school will be measured as going backwards in
8th grade math.
Wouldn't it make more sense to do longitudinal testing and
measure this year's 8th grader against their performance last
year in the 7th grade and the year before that in the 6th
grade? And if not, why not?
Mr. Barnes. Yes, it makes sense, and that is part of the
growth model that you have. But what makes more sense is what
should an 8th grade student know in math to be on track to be
competitive as a worker, as a student elsewhere. And so that is
the part of the NAEP.
NAEP comes in and measures your state criterion test
against that, and one of the things that we recommend here is
that--and I am sorry that my distinguished brother left--we are
all part of the United States, so there is a national standard.
We tried that a few years ago, and it didn't work down south.
Mr. Andrews. Well, Governor, if I may, because my time is
limited, do you or do you not favor longitudinal testing? That
is what I am asking.
Mr. Barnes. I do in the context of a growth model but not
as to take the place of NAEP.
Mr. Andrews. Okay.
And how about the other panelists?
Dr. Rothkopf? President Rothkopf?
Mr. Rothkopf. Yes, Congressman, I think the key goes back
to a point about data, and I think your question really goes to
what is the quality of the data, the longitudinal data.
We did the report I referred to where we evaluated each
state, and one of the subjects was data quality, and there is
something called the data quality----
Mr. Andrews. I don't mean to interrupt you but I am
limited. Do you or do you not favor longitudinal testing?
Mr. Rothkopf. What was that?
Mr. Andrews. Do you or do you not favor longitudinal
testing?
Mr. Rothkopf. I think it is fine. I think it is good, but I
think you have got to have the data, and I think it is very
important that states, including New Jersey, which has not
really gone as far as a----
Mr. Andrews. But if I may, this really isn't a data
problem. If you have a school with 50 8th graders and 90
percent of them passed the test last year and only 80 percent
of them pass the test this year, that school is going to be, as
I understand it, categorized as not making adequate yearly
progress for this year. And you are not measuring the same
kids. You are measuring last year's kids against this year's.
That is not a data problem; that is an interpretation
problem.
Who else has an opinion on that?
Ms. Burmaster. That is one of the biggest complaints about
AYP.
Mr. Andrews. Do you favor longitudinal testing?
Ms. Burmaster. Yes, or growth models. Longitudinal testing
would be one form of growth models or part of a growth model.
Mr. Andrews. Mr. Weaver, what do you think?
Mr. Weaver. When you say longitudinal testing, are you
using it synonymously with growth model?
Mr. Andrews. Well, of course, growth model means a lot of
different things. Here is what I mean. I mean that I don't
believe that a school should be held accountable based upon a
negative assessment that one group of children slipped back
when it was a different group of children. Let me unpack that.
I think that if this year's 8th graders don't do as well as
last year's 8th graders, that doesn't necessarily say anything
about the school; it may say more about last year's 8th
graders. That is what I am talking about. So we are comparing
the same children to the same children and their growth.
So I guess, yes, I do mean the same as growth models in
that respect.
Mr. Weaver. Okay. Well, oftentimes, we get caught up in
labels, and so that is the reason why I was asking were you
using synonymously longitudinal and growth models. But rather
than use a label, I just want to look at what the issue is and
try to work to solve and resolve the issue without attaching a
term to it.
Mr. Andrews. Mr. McElroy, did you have anything?
Mr. McElroy. I agree that that is one of the biggest
problems with AYP currently, that you are measuring one cohort
of kids against a different cohort of kids the next year. So I
would agree with you. How you do that, whether you use one kind
of growth model or another is the issue that is the jump ball.
Mr. Andrews. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Casserly. You win the prize. [Laughter.]
Chairman Miller. Mrs. Biggert?
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We hear, at least I have roundtables throughout my district
to talk to business groups, to talk to the administrators, to
talk to teachers, whoever wants to come in and talk about No
Child Left Behind, and so many times it is said that there is
so much pressure on meeting AYP that the focus of the
curriculum is teaching to the test.
And I know, Mr. Rothkopf, you talked about how we need to
place emphasis on science, engineering in order to ensure that
we are able to compete globally, and I think that that is
really true. So are we limiting the curriculum too much?
I just have a couple of things.
The other thing is that the administration zeroed out the
Perkins Fund and so we went back, I think, and put that back
in. In talking to other groups, there are students who do not
intend to go to college, and those are the ones that when they
get to high school start to want to drop out.
Going out to the vocational schools in my district, I met
with some great success stories that kids had wanted to drop
out, there happened to be a great teacher that got them
interested. They wanted to work on cars. Well, they got to work
on cars but they also then had to take those courses in math
and reading to be able--or if they were going into
construction, to have those skills. And the business community
said, ``These are the kids that we need in our workforce that
are not getting the training because they drop out of school.''
So I think that how are we going to balance that type of
student that is really necessary unless we can engage them and
have the time to do that and not just think of it as teaching
to the test?
Mr. Rothkopf?
Mr. Rothkopf. Yes. I think you have put your finger on what
is, I think, one of the critical issues we face in this whole
dropout issue.
The difficulty is that--let's take the job of being what we
used to call an auto mechanic. It was a pretty simple kind of
thing. You change the oil, you fix the carburetor, do the
plugs. That is not it anymore; you have got to be a technician.
You go in and see what is wrong with your car. You need to be
able to deal with computers and problem-solving and manuals.
You have to have an awful lot of schools to take a job which
used to be considered a semi-unskilled job, which now requires
a fair number of skills.
I think what we need to be looking at is a track, not one
that sort of treats those youngsters who want to go into
vocational fields as a lesser track, but one which really
focuses on technical and career skills and gives them a reason
to stay in school because there is an end game there, and it is
not learning some things which are not relevant.
The truth is, they need to have the knowledge, they need to
have the skills, and we need to make sure they have them. But
we need to clearly have an approach that keeps them in those
schools by making things more attractive to them and showing
them what is at the end of the day.
Mrs. Biggert. And then just one other issue that has come
up, and there has been some talk here about the need for
physical education and perhaps bringing that in to NCLB.
Illinois happens to be the only state that mandates physical
education every day, and I know there has been some--whether it
is called recess sometimes now--but there has also been some
studies that without the physical education, the kids don't
learn as well, don't learn fast.
Has there been anybody who can say anything about that? Is
physical education getting lost because of the pressure of the
academia?
This really is something that, to me, little boys, when
they are in 3rd and 4th grade, if they had just that half an
hour to run off that energy and then come back, that the
learning takes place in a much greater way right after recess.
Anybody have comments on that?
Mr. Weaver. I think many parts of the curriculum have been
cut back as a result of No Child Left Behind. And, in many
instances, many children may not be receiving the well-rounded
education that we would like to have, which is inclusive of
phys ed, simply because many people are focusing on reading and
math.
So, hopefully, there should continue to be room for the
inclusion of civics education, physical education, arts and
other areas of the curriculum, if in fact we want our children
to be well-rounded in terms of their education.
Mr. Casserly. I don't have anything specifically on
physical education, although I agree with your underlying
point.
But one of the things that might help correct some of the
unintended side effects of the provisions in No Child Left
Behind would be to reorient some of the law around instruction
and some of these other areas that people are concerned about
rather than quite so many procedural things that sometimes have
us chasing our tails a little bit.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank all of our witnesses.
Mr. Henderson, you mentioned as one of your five standards
the appropriate resources, and you talk about the promise of
Brown. Is funding equity necessary to achieve the promise of
Brown?
Mr. Henderson. Mr. Scott, I think funding equity is a
critical component in achieving the fulfillment of Brown.
And as I pointed out in my remarks, first of all, Title 1
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was not intended
to equalize funding between rich and poor school districts
within the same state. That was really intended to be a state
function.
I am sorry that Mr. Hoekstra left, because he talked about
the willingness of states to carry out their mandates to their
citizens. And I think there is ample evidence to suggest that
states not only have ignored that responsibility but, in many
instances, worked against it.
So, truly, there does need to be a recognition of the
reality we confront, and Title 1 is certainly there to
supplement what states have failed to do in their equity
efforts.
But having said that, state equity initiatives have been
woefully underfunded; they are not being funded fully now. I
think we are still dealing with the effects of that.
No Child Left Behind is certainly providing us with a new
federal standard that is moving us in the right direction, but,
again, the dichotomy between states that provide 93 percent of
their resources for public education and only 7 percent coming
from the federal government, it does seem to show the imbalance
that can only be rectified by having the feds continue to prod
in the direction.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Senator Kennedy mentioned the School of Newport News had
done extremely well. Part of that is we put extra funding into
that school, and it makes a difference.
Ms. Burmaster, you mentioned--and several mentioned--
sanctions and what is appropriate. And some of the sanctions
would be totally inappropriate. If a school isn't teaching,
giving the students supplemental educational services seems a
bizarre reaction. And if limited English proficiency students
aren't learning, letting other students get out the backdoor
and go to another school doesn't address the problem.
Is there something in No Child Left Behind, or does there
need to be, when a school fails to make AYP, an assessment of
what the problem is?
Ms. Burmaster. Yes, and in our proposal----
Mr. Scott. Is that in the bill now or does it need to be in
the bill?
Ms. Burmaster. It needs to be in the bill. And our
proposal, through our innovative models and then based on peer
review, whether it was a valid model or not, could incorporate
those very types of things.
Mr. Scott. Okay. We talked around about the dropout rate.
Dropouts are correlated with unemployment, underemployment,
welfare and crime, and, obviously, if you let kids drop out,
they are dropping out from the bottom, your testing average
will go up if you let people drop out.
We thought we had addressed this in the original No Child
Left Behind by punishing systems with high dropout rates. I
guess my question is, are we counting the number of dropouts
accurately, and are we punishing schools sufficiently to
discourage letting students drop out?
Whoever?
Ms. Burmaster. Do you want to go?
Mr. Casserly. Mr. Scott, I don't know whether we are
counting dropout rates exactly accurately. There are a number
of different methodologies that one could use to make this
calculation. I think by any of the methods that are currently
being discussed, at least many urban schools and urban school
districts and many poor rural ones have dropout rates that are
way too high no matter what the methodology is.
And I think we have got just a huge national problem that
we need to address on this front and also involving the reform
of our high schools.
Mr. Scott. I wanted to get in another quick question before
my time runs out, and that is the perverse incentive that may
occur when you are focusing your attention just on those
students right above and below the cutoff rate. If somebody
goes from zero all the way up to 50, you get no credit because
they still failed.
Does the growth model address this problem where you would
in fact get credit for bringing people almost up to passing but
not quite?
Ms. Burmaster. It is important that we don't just start
using the term, ``the growth model,'' as though there is some
sort of agreement as to what that is, but, certainly, a growth
model could address that.
And if I could add----
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, could I get--Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman,
could I get the witnesses to address that question in writing?
Thank you.
Chairman Miller. If you would, please.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Miller. Only if they provide the correct answer to
what that growth model will provide. [Laughter.]
Mr. Ehlers?
Mr. Ehlers. May I put the same restriction on my question?
It is no secret that I have been a strong proponent of math and
science education over the years, but it is not just because I
think students should learn math and science and it is not just
because I think since I know it everyone should know it.
The main point is years ago I saw what was going to develop
internationally if we didn't improve our math-science
education, because I saw what China and India and other
countries were doing. And now it has happened, and we are
losing ground competitively. And so it is all, at this point, a
good deal that is about competitiveness.
In spite of that, we have actually gone backward on math-
science education and teacher training with No Child Left
Behind. Originally, as it left this House, it was a good bill.
It did provide for adequate funding for that, but before we
passed No Child Left Behind, we provided $485 million per year
in funding for the Eisenhower Professional Development Program.
What passed this House was a program, which I put in, that
would require states to set aside at least 15 and up to 20
percent of their Title 2 teacher quality grants for the Math/
Science Partnership program. Unfortunately, that was dropped
during conference.
Since then, we have spent considerably less than we did
before on the Eisenhower Program, and I certainly hope in this
version of No Child Left Behind we will go back to the higher
level, because we are not doing our nation any good and not
doing our kids any good if we don't provide teacher development
funding in math and science. It is the one area they probably
need it the most.
Many science teachers, for example, have reported they have
little, if any, funds available for professional development
activities at this point, and I think having properly trained
teachers in math and science is the best way to tackle the
problem. It is not new textbooks, not new curricula but
properly trained teachers.
I would appreciate if the witnesses would comment in the
time available on the level of development they have seen
available for math and science teacher professional development
and any other thoughts you might have on the appropriate way to
create a set-aside for that.
And I would like to start with Ms. Burmaster, since she is
right on the front lines there.
Ms. Burmaster. I am in absolute agreement with you. And I
believe that the recruitment of math-and science-trained
individuals are--the governor had spoken about alternative
certification. Being able to recruit from industry and commerce
is an important component of this as well. But there is not
currently enough done on professional development around math
and science or recruitment.
Mr. Ehlers. Let's just go down the line.
Mr. Weaver. I would agree, but I also would certainly like
to see more opportunities presented to minority students who
have not typically had the opportunity to participate in such
programs, such that they can become part of America's future in
terms of science and math.
Mr. Ehlers. That is crucial.
Thank you.
Mr. McElroy. I agree with your contention and your premise.
There are several opportunities for professional development,
and one of them a teacher sent us. As a matter of fact,
Chairman Miller and Chairman Kennedy introduced a bill on that,
and we would be very supportive of that concept.
Another one of these summer institutes that I mentioned
four teachers, which we used to do many years ago, congressman,
and we have dropped back and don't do. And then in an
organization like mine, we have our own professional
development program called, Educational Research and
Dissemination where we go out and actually train people, and
math is included in that program.
Mr. Ehlers. Let me just comment. Twice I taught NSF
professional development summer institutes, and they were
invaluable to the teachers.
Mr. Casserly. Mr. Ehlers, I am in accord with your general
emphasis on math and science and professional development.
First of all, let me just congratulate you on your national
standards bill.
One of the things that we have learned from the data that
we have been collecting on our urban school districts is that
the area where we have got the fewest highly qualified teachers
are in the area of math and science. So in addition to
professional development, we need a much greater emphasis not
only recruiting but retaining and supporting math and science
teachers, as well as the professional development.
Mr. Rothkopf. If I might, we, in the business community,
believe that innovation is the key to American competitiveness.
Math and science is critical, so I commend you on your
approach.
A couple things I would note----
Chairman Miller. No, no, no, you don't get a couple things.
Mr. Rothkopf. No, one thing. Can I give you one thing? And
I would just make one point, and that is in the time to train
these new teachers, I think we need to consider the possibility
of bringing in teachers from, for example, industry to support,
to teach the math and science and have qualified teachers.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Henderson and Mr. Barnes, quickly.
Mr. Henderson. We completely agree with your analysis and
support it wholeheartedly.
Mr. Barnes. I agree, and I think that math and science
teachers deserve to earn more than others that are in shortage
areas.
Mr. Ehlers. I agree, but I have had a little trouble
selling that.
Mr. Barnes. I can imagine.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Tierney?
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If the panel would be so kind as to, on a scale of one to
five, with one being the most urgent and five being not very
urgent, tell me what you think about a universal preschool
program and its impact on the K through 12 population and
whether that is something we ought to be starting with and
focusing on.
Governor?
Mr. Barnes. Georgia is the only state in the nation that
has a 4-year universal pre-K program. It is very important. It
has helped us close the achievement gap.
If I had it to do--this is speaking beyond No Child Left
Behind Commission--if I had it to do over again, if I were
redoing public education, I would do away with the 12th grade
and make it optional if you don't need the extra time and take
all the money from the 12th grade and put it into early
childhood. Now, you will never do that because of football, but
that is what ought to happen. [Laughter.]
Mr. Tierney. Well-said.
Mr. Henderson?
Mr. Henderson. I think clearly childhood development is
critically important.
Mr. Tierney. I am sorry, sir. Is your microphone on?
Mr. Henderson. I am sorry. I think that early childhood
development is critically important. On a scale of one to five,
I would, sort of, put it somewhere around a 1.5 or 2 at the
very latest.
I do think, however, that it has to be augmented with the
other things that children need that would not be a part of
early childhood education. So, again, health care, food
programs----
Mr. Tierney. So you are thinking of, sort of, an early Head
Start.
Mr. Henderson. Yes, early Head Start but much more broadly,
and I think you are on the right track, so we completely agree
with that.
Mr. Rothkopf. We think it is important. I am not sure I can
put it on a numerical scale. It is an important feature to have
the kids go to school qualify to really start learning.
Mr. Tierney. If I could just stay with you for a second,
Mr. Rothkopf. So you don't think it is that important that you
can't put it on the scale and you wouldn't say it is one end of
the scale or the other, sort of in the middle about it?
Mr. Rothkopf. We think it is important. We haven't really--
I would have to say we are focusing more on some of these other
issues and, frankly, haven't really addressed pre-school as a
subject.
So I think it is important. I can't say it is as important
as some of the other subjects that we talk about.
Mr. Tierney. That is interesting.
Mr. Casserly. As long as this isn't an either/or, I give
this one a one.
Mr. McElroy. I would give it a one as well.
Mr. Weaver. One.
Ms. Burmaster. Research confirms, and every parent agrees,
the first years of life lay the foundation for all future
learning. I would give it a one.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Our last questioner will be Mr. Keller. Mr. Keller is
recognized.
Mr. Keller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be quick
here since we have limited time.
A somewhat controversial issue under No Child Left Behind
is President Bush's proposal to expand testing to each and
every year in high school.
Starting with Ms. Burmaster, do you support or oppose this
proposed expansion of testing?
Ms. Burmaster. Our organization does not support that.
Mr. Keller. Okay.
Mr. Weaver?
Mr. Weaver. We do not support it.
Mr. Keller. Mr. McElroy?
Mr. McElroy. Not until we get what we are doing now right.
Mr. Keller. Mr. Casserly?
Mr. Casserly. Oppose.
Mr. Keller. Mr. Rothkopf?
Mr. Rothkopf. Not every year, but we ought to have some
expansion of No Child Left Behind to high school.
Mr. Keller. Mr. Henderson?
Mr. Henderson. We don't support it.
Mr. Keller. Governor?
Mr. Barnes. No. The administration does not count that
toward accountability. We do recommend that you have a 12th
grade test in addition to the 10th grade that is linked to
accountability.
Mr. Keller. Okay.
My final question: The single biggest complaint I get about
No Child Left Behind is the inconsistency between the state and
federal accounting systems.
To give you an example, in my state, we use one single
test, called the FCAT, in Florida, for both the state's A-plus
program and the federal government's No Child Left Behind Act.
Approximately, 90 percent of schools get a passing grade from
the state's A-plus plan, and approximately 90 percent of
schools fail to meet the federal AYP standard. It sends a
pretty confusing message to parents who are moving into
neighborhoods and ask, ``Is this a good school?''
I understand the reason for the confusion, but it is not
easily articulated to parents. You have seven different
subgroups, under each subgroup you ask two questions: Did you
test 95 percent of the students, and did they make a passing
score?
So you could have an excellent school, which receives an A-
plus on the state level, and they pass 13 out of the 14
subcategories, but because they only tested 94 percent of the
Down's Syndrome students in a special-needs class, they are
considered a failing school under the federal government.
My question is, should the states and the federal
government better align these dual accountability systems to
ensure that parents are given clear and consistent information
on their children's schools? And if so, how?
Let me start with Mr. McElroy.
Mr. McElroy. My answer would be, yes, to the question, and
I want you to know it isn't only in Florida that that is a
problem. We hear about that throughout the country.
If you modify the AYP measuring system or accountability
system with several of the other kinds of growth models, you
could clear that problem up.
Mr. Keller. Ms. Burmaster, let me go to you.
Ms. Burmaster. I think that we hear of that problem as well
in our organization, and I think you could do it through the
innovative model proposal that we have submitted.
Mr. Keller. What if you have something, instead of just
saying yes or no, let's say that you meet 90 percent of the
criteria, that is excellent, and if you meet 80 percent, that
is good, and if you meet 70 percent, that is average, something
where you have a sliding scale of evaluation.
Mr. Weaver, what do you think of that approach?
Mr. Weaver. I don't know. I don't know. But in response to
the question that you just asked previously----
Mr. Keller. Yes, sir.
Mr. Weaver [continuing]. Multiple measures is something
that I do believe would aid and assist what you have suggested
as a problem.
Mr. Keller. Okay.
Mr. Casserly, what do you think about should we do a better
job of bringing these dual accountability systems into line?
And if so, do you have some ideas about that?
Mr. Casserly. Yes, I think we should do a better job, and I
agree with you, it does cause a lot of confusion in the public.
We don't have a set of proposals about how to do that, but
I am happy to think some of those through and see if can get
some for you.
Mr. Keller. Thank you.
Mr. Rothkopf, your thoughts?
Mr. Rothkopf. Absolutely ought to be more alignment between
the two systems. Too much confusion and that weakens the sense
of commitment on the public side for accountability.
Mr. Keller. Mr. Henderson?
Mr. Henderson. And I think greater alignment certainly
makes sense, although with respect to your proposal about
categories of excellence, I am not sure that I could really
speak to that. It sounds as if you are weakening standards
inadvertently by creating these general categories of
accountability, which seem to be weaker than the current
standard.
So while I think there needs to be alignment, I am not sure
that I could go----
Mr. Keller. Governor, I want to close by you addressing
those questions, and as your chief competitor, University of
Florida being the reigning national champions of football and
basketball, if you want to comment on----
Mr. Barnes. So we have heard 6,000 times. [Laughter.]
Mr. Keller. Go ahead, Governor.
Mr. Barnes. Yes, they should be better aligned. And this
goes back to this issue--I wish Mr. Ehlers was here. Don't we
know what an 8th grader should be learning in math? We do
because the National Foundation of Science tells us.
So we tell NAEP, ``Devise a test.'' All right. We test the
child and either they pass or they don't or they rank in the
proficiency basic or whatever, and then if your state standard
does not comply with that, tell the parent and tell the policy-
makers, ``You have got a bunch of weak standards, and they are
not meeting the national test.''
Thank you.
Chairman Miller. On that coalescing note----
[Laughter.]
Let me certainly thank the panel for your time this
morning, for your answers to the questions and for your
contributions.
And, again, I want to recognize that it wasn't just about
appearing at this panel. You have all been working and your
organizations have been working very hard over the last several
years to improve No Child Left Behind.
I would like to recognize also that we received written
testimony from the PTA, the American Association of School
Administrators, National Association of State School Boards,
the National Association of Secondary School Principals and
other organizations will be submitting testimony for this
hearing.
Again, thank you.
And I want to thank all of my colleagues in both the House
and the Senate committees for their attendance this morning.
Thank you very much.
And with that, the committee will stand adjourned.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Altmire follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jason Altmire, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Pennsylvania
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing today
on the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind. It is a privilege to be
joined by our colleagues from the Senate as we begin to discuss how to
improve elementary and secondary education in the United States, and
ensure our children are provided with the skills necessary to be
successful and productive in the global economy.
I would like to extend a warm welcome to today's witnesses. I
appreciate all of you for taking the time to be here and look forward
to hearing from you.
No one can disagree with the goals of NCLB. We must ensure that all
children can read and perform math at grade level by the 2013--2014
school year. However, what means are used to achieve this goal and how
this goal is measured are critically important.
While there has been some success since NCLB became law in 2002,
there are clearly areas where reform is needed. Some problems with NCLB
can be attributed to insufficient federal funding for mandates the law
placed on states. However, it is important we do not use the lack of
funding as an excuse to overlook other shortcomings in the law.
Among other issues, we must examine whether current tests
accurately gauge student knowledge, if the results of these tests are
being used to fairly judge which schools are making adequate yearly
progress, and whether the interventions for failing schools in NCLB are
effective and what other interventions may be more effective.
I am anxious to hear the ideas of the witnesses here today. I
believe that working together we can dramatically improve NCLB and, as
a result, greatly improve the education of millions of children.
______
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Vernon J. Ehlers, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Michigan
Chairman Miller, Senior Republican Member McKeon, Chairman Kennedy,
Ranking Member Enzi, I thank you for holding this very important
bicameral hearing on the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind
Act today.
I support the No Child Left Behind Act, but recognize that we need
to fix some things. In particular, we need to strengthen NCLB's focus
on math and science education and create equity among states.
High quality math and science education at the K-12 levels is
extremely important to ensure that our future workforce is ready to
compete in the global economy.
I have been so concerned about the quality of math and science
education in this country, and the limited number of young people who
are pursuing math and science-related degrees, that I founded the House
STEM Education Caucus with my Democratic colleague Mark Udall of
Colorado in 2004. As you probably know, STEM stands for ``Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.'' The STEM Education Caucus
has helped to inform our colleagues about the growing demand for
science and math training in the workforce and the needs of our future
economy, and more than 100 Members of Congress have joined this caucus.
To improve our math and science education content standards,
Senator Chris Dodd and I introduced the Standards to Provide
Educational Achievement for All Kids (SPEAK) Act (H.R. 325), which
creates, adopts and recommends rigorous voluntary American education
content standards in math and science in grades K-12. NCLB has made
important strides toward strengthening standards-based education and
holding states and schools accountable for ensuring that our students
are learning. However, with more than 50 different sets of academic
standards, state assessments and definitions of proficiency, there is
tremendous variability across our nation in the subject matter our
students are learning. The bill tasks the National Assessment Governing
Board, in consultation with relevant organizations, to review existing
standards and to review the issue of course sequencing as it relates to
student achievement.
I might add that there is considerable variation across states and
even school districts in the sequencing of math and science courses,
which is problematic for our increasingly mobile student population.
Our students could lack instruction in certain basic science or math
concepts if they transfer between schools with completely different
sequences of courses.
The SPEAK Act authorizes the American Standards Incentive Fund to
incentivize states to adopt excellent math and science standards. It
offers an ``If You Build It, They Will Come Approach.'' Let me
emphasize that this bill does not establish a national curriculum or
required national standards. Participation by states is strictly
voluntary. I have always felt that the ``carrot'' is more effective
than the ``stick'' in leading reform. It is my hope that all states
will feel the overwhelming responsibility to bolster their state
standards in science and math and will step up to the plate.
I also introduced another bill, the Science Accountability Act
(H.R. 35), which holds states and schools accountable for ensuring that
K-12 students learn science. It amends the federal NCLB to require that
the science assessments, which will begin in the 2007-08 school year,
be included in the state's accountability system beginning in the 2008-
09 school year. It also gradually phases in annual assessments in
science in grades 3-8, matching the existing requirements for reading
and math assessments.
I applaud President Bush and the Aspen Institute's Commission on No
Child Left Behind for recommending that student performance in science
become part of the school's adequate yearly progress calculation.
Science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) subjects are directly
tied to our national economy and we must do all we can to ensure that
all our students are equipped with at least a basic understanding of
STEM subjects. If you question this, just look at the evidence.
Business owners, particularly manufacturers, have noticed a disturbing
trend: They are unable to find qualified skilled workers in our nation.
Of the 800 U.S. manufacturers surveyed in the 2005 Skills Gap report,
80 percent reported a shortage of qualified workers overall, with 65
percent reporting a shortage of engineers and scientists. To prepare
the workers of the future, we need to give our kids a chance by
providing them teachers who are trained to teach math and science
properly and understandably. It is critical for our children's and our
nation's future.
Funding levels are another key issue to address in the NCLB
reauthorization. I would like to comment specifically on funding for
math and science professional development. In fiscal year 2001, before
the passage of NCLB, Congress provided $485 million in funding for the
Eisenhower Professional Development program, which focused on math and
science. When we wrote the NCLB Act, I fought to set aside dedicated
funding for math and science professional development. You may recall
that the House bill required states to set aside at least 15 and up to
20 percent of their Title II Teacher Quality grants for the Math and
Science Partnership program. Unfortunately, this dedicated funding was
dropped during conference. The law provided an authorization of $450
million for the Math and Science Partnerships, but, to date, the most
we have appropriated is $182 million. While Title II A funds may be
used for professional development as well, a GAO report found that the
majority of districts use these funds for class size reduction. Many
science teachers report, little, if any, funds available for
professional development activities.
A resounding bipartisan chorus of business leaders, educators,
Nobel laureates and other luminaries has called for improvements in
teacher professional development. Most recently, on March 7, Microsoft
Chairman Bill Gates testified in the Senate regarding the importance of
math and science education, and stated, ``If we are going to demand
more from our students and teachers, then it is our obligation to
provide them with the support they need to meet the challenge. All
students--regardless of age, grade level, gender, or race--do better
when they are supported by a good teacher.'' The Math and Science
Partnerships provide necessary professional development enabling
effective math and science teaching and strengthening our students'
math and science skills. We must set aside dedicated funding for math
and science professional development in the reauthorization bill.
There have been some implementation problems and other issues with
the NCLB Act. For example, schools with large numbers of English
language learners or students with disabilities have been identified as
``needing improvement'' when the majority of the students at the school
are showing progress academically. Additionally, the U.S. Department of
Education appears to hold some states to a higher standard than other
states. Clearly, both of these issues have led to concerns in Michigan,
and should be addressed in the reauthorization legislation.
I look forward to working with Members on both sides of the aisle
and Capitol on improving the No Child Left Behind Act. It is imperative
that we hold our schools and states to high standards so that our
children are prepared for their future and our nation's future.
______
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hare follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Phil Hare, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Illinois
Thank you Mr. Chairman for calling up this important hearing.
Thanks also to our friends from the Senate for joining us today to
discuss No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and how it relates to the
achievement gap. It is critical at this time, now 6 years after the
enactment of the law, that we review its successes, failures and
effectiveness. I appreciate all the witnesses for sharing their
testimony and for playing a critical role in this discussion.
Honoring NCLB's goals and being realistic. The ultimate question in
every discussion about NCLB is how do we honor the goals of the law
while reforming it in a way we can realistically implement it? I think
we can all agree that the goals of the law are good and we have seen
some promising strides since it was first enacted in 2001, especially
in increasing state accountability for and involvement in k-12
education. However, the law's strict and punitive nature has
discouraged new teachers from entering the field and has made it
difficult to retain quality teachers with advanced degrees.
Additionally, the focus on testing has been a great disservice to our
children and populations of students are being left behind.
Growth Models. One idea is to look at how we measure progress. We
are seeing instances where entire subgroups are not even tested out of
fear that they will bring down the district's AYP score. Is the law so
strict that we are willing to leave groups of students behind in order
to comply with it? It is important to look at where student subgroups
are starting from and where they end up at the end of the year. In
situations of tremendous progress, schools should be rewarded, or at
least permitted to factor this measurable progress in the school's
overall score even if they still fall short of their annual measurable
objective. The important point here is that progress is being made.
Another idea is to fully fund NCLB.
Challenges regarding low-income schools. Arthur Rothkopf, our
witness from the US Chamber of Commerce, states in his written
testimony that the problems we have with our education system cannot be
solved by increasing funding. However, he does not address low-income
communities. In Illinois, our public schools are funded by property
taxes. This works well in Chicago and other bustling cities where
employment is strong and incomes high. However, down state in the rural
parts of my district, there is extreme poverty and drastically lower
incomes. The cost of property in these areas is much lower than in
Chicago and the schools reflect that, yet many of the schools serve
large geographical areas and therefore have decent sized populations.
Schools like Lewiston Community High School in Canton have leaky
roofs, equipment in their shop class from the pre-World War II ear, and
a hand-drawn Periodic Table of Elements in the science lab. There is
not even funding for a chart of the elements! How can children be
expected to learn, yet improve in an environment like that? Funding is
not the entire answer but it is part of it, especially when a
community's industry base is manufacturing and subject to offshoring/
outsourcing like in Galesburg, another town in my district that lost
its Maytag plant to Senora Mexico. When the jobs leave, so do the
residents, resulting in fewer property taxes and little support for the
schools. We must establish a more equitable system.
Additionally, since Congress has not fully funded the NCLB mandate,
states' resources have been solely devoted to K-12 education at the
expense of the states' institutions of higher education, social
programs and basic infrastructure. If we expect schools to meet
stringent requirements and high standards, while not bankrupting the
states, Congress must provide adequate funding.
Questions for the Panel
Edward McElroy, American Federation of Teachers; Governor Roy
Barnes, Aspen Institute: From your hearings and discussions with
teachers, officials, superintendents, and parents across the country,
have you found that schools, especially ones struggling to meet
benchmarks after year 1 or 2, have had the resources they needed to
provide extra help to students who required it, such as tutors or
after-hours instruction? Did you find that teachers, especially first-
year teachers, had the mentoring and support they needed? What can
Congress do to guarantee schools, instructors, and students have the
necessary resources, tools, and support?
Governor Roy Barnes, Aspen Institute: I have heard from many of my
constituents--teachers, parents, administrators--who have concerns
regarding your Highly Qualified and Effective Teacher proposal (HQET).
Do you think that teachers that are evaluated as highly effective in
higher income schools would get the same rating if they were teaching
in low-income schools? And if not, is it fair to make these teachers
compete against each other for the highly qualified rating? Could this
serve as a disincentive for teachers to teach in high poverty schools?
Wade Henderson, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights: Do you have
any suggestions on how to more equitably direct resources to schools
with high poverty rates to achieve the goals of NCLB?
Arthur Rothkopf, US Chamber of Commerce:
Would you please speak further about the particular skills
in which American students have fallen behind in terms of college and
workplace readiness, in particular at the k-12 level? My district has
lost many of its manufacturing base but we are on the verge of a huge
breakthrough in the emerging biofuel industry. How can business and
education leaders come together to ensure high standards of basic
education while also educating a workforce for evolving industry?
You state in your written testimony that our problems with
our public education system cannot be solved by increased funding. Yet,
low-income and rural communities cannot afford to update their
equipment and materials, or to fix leaky roofs and dilapidated
buildings. In these communities there are not the jobs or industry to
support adequate funding for the schools. Can you address this further
in terms of your written testimony?
Mike Casserly, Council of Great City Schools: What do you consider
to be key elements of any growth model? Can you comment on the
Administration's implementation of the growth model pilot project and
do you have ideas for alternative growth models?
Edward J. McElroy, American Federation of Teachers:
What do you think are the most effective school
improvement interventions and how should they be incorporated in the
law? How can we wane away from basing our entire education system on
tests, that are expensive and take funding away from key educational
programs like PE, music and art?
How do you recommend teachers play a greater role in
developing school and district reforms?
How do you respond to the Aspen Commission's highly
qualified and effective teacher proposal and what do you think are the
most important steps we can take in order to attract well qualified
teachers to high-poverty or rural schools?
Elizabeth Burmaster, Council of Chief State School Officers:
Can you elaborate on what sorts of innovations you would
like to implement that have been prohibited under current law, and can
you explain how such innovations would help in our shared goal of
closing the achievement gap for all of NCLB's subgroups?
I would again like to thank all the witnesses for their testimony
and participation in today's discussion with us. I believe many key
issues were presented which will continue to come up as we move forward
in the reauthorization process. I look forward to working with you and
my colleagues to address the problems with the 2001 bill and hopefully
come up with something that will keep standards high but also set our
schools and teachers on the track for success. Thank you.
______
[The American Federation of Teachers report, ``Building
Minds, Minding Buildings,'' can be accessed at the following
Internet URL:]
http://www.aft.org/topics/building-conditions/downloads/minding-
bldgs.pdf
______
[The Health Report to the American People as included in
the Working Group's Final Recommendations, released September
29, 2006, ``Health Care That Works for All Americans,'' can be
accessed at the following Internet URL:]
http://www.citizenshealthcare.gov/recommendations/healthreport3.pdf
[Recommendations from the Business Coalition for Student
Achievement (BCSA) follows:]
Framework for Reauthorizing the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act:
Recommendations to Improve and Strengthen the Law
The Business Coalition for Student Achievement--representing
business leaders from every sector of the economy--believes that
improving the performance of the K-12 education system in the United
States is necessary to provide a strong foundation for both U.S.
competitiveness and for individuals to succeed in our rapidly changing
world. We are committed to working with all stakeholders on this
essential task.
The coalition views the No Child Left Behind Act as one of the
critical tools needed to transform U.S. education so that all students
graduate academically prepared for college, citizenship and the 21st
century workplace. NCLB and related federal, state and local policies
and resources must be aligned to ensure that all students are
challenged by a rigorous, well-rounded core curriculum in safe and
engaging learning environments. It also must be supported by policies
that bolster U.S. scientific and technological leadership.
We call on Congress to strengthen and improve NCLB provisions and
funding, while respecting the fundamental features of this historic
education law that are designed to raise student achievement and close
achievement gaps:
All students proficient in reading and math by 2014;
Accountability for all groups of students reaching
proficiency on annual assessments;
Public report cards that include data on the performance
of each student group;
Highly qualified teachers in every classroom;
Options for students in persistently low-performing
schools; and
Identification and intervention in schools that need
improvement.
Focus on college and workplace readiness
Provide incentives for states to raise academic standards
and improve assessments to align them with college and workplace
expectations. These incentives should enable states to:
Improve state standards and assessments regularly, with
input from business and higher education, so that students graduate
from high school having demonstrated proficiency on assessments of the
core knowledge, advanced problem-solving skills and critical thinking
capacities needed to succeed in both postsecondary education and the
workplace.
Develop state consortia to collaborate on the development
of standards and assessments benchmarked to the best in the world.
Reform secondary schools and hold them accountable for
increasing the graduation rate, using the common definition adopted by
the nation's governors, and graduating students who are ready for
college and work.
Increase opportunities for high school students to
participate in Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, honors
and appropriate industry-recognized certification courses.
Emphasize science, technology, engineering and math (STEM)
Increase and align STEM funding with the goals of NCLB and
require rigorous program evaluation.
Focus funding on scaling up programs to improve teaching
and learning, such as Math Now and Math and Science Partnerships.
Add science to the adequate yearly progress (AYP)
accountability system and support state participation in National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) science assessments.
Enhance data-driven decision making
Based on commitments from states, provide resources to
develop statewide data systems that offer timely and accurate
collection, analysis and use of high quality longitudinal data that
align to district systems to inform decision making and ultimately to
improve teacher effectiveness and student achievement.
Provide educator training on the use of data to
differentiate instruction for students, especially for those who are
not yet proficient and those who are more advanced.
Increase teacher and principal effectiveness
Shift current definition of ``highly qualified teachers''
to a focus on ``highly effective teachers.''
Focus resources on supporting and rewarding both teacher
and principal effectiveness at improving student achievement by funding
programs that:
Align preparation, recruitment, induction, retention and
professional development with the knowledge and skills needed to
improve student performance and to enable all students to graduate from
high school ready for postsecondary education and the workplace.
Require the institutions and other entities that receive
funding for these purposes to evaluate their impact on increased
educator effectiveness.
Institute performance- and market-based pay programs that:
reward educators whose performance contributes to substantial growth in
student achievement, attract and retain effective math and science
teachers and adjunct faculty, and draw effective teachers and leaders
to high-need schools.
Develop evaluation systems based principally on improved
student performance.
Implement policies and practices to quickly and fairly
remove ineffective educators.
Strengthen and refine accountability
Amend the NCLB accountability system to:
Provide guidance on ways that States can differentiate
among districts and schools that are close to or far from making
adequate yearly progress, and ensure that resources for improvement
focus on those with the highest concentrations of underperforming
students.
Permit states to use rigorous measures of year-to-year
growth in student academic achievement and other methods verified by
the Secretary that are consistent with the goal of all students
reaching proficiency in reading, math and science.
Close loopholes that allow states to use statistical means
to ``game'' the accountability system and undermine the intent of
school restructuring.
Require districts to provide parents with timely and
easily understood information on their options and allow them to choose
either supplemental education services or moving to a higher performing
public school.
Fund development of better assessments for special
education students and English language learners.
Invest in school improvement and encourage innovation
Increase capacity of states and other entities to better
assist schools that need help making AYP and that are facing corrective
action and/or restructuring.
Target funding, assistance and distribution of effective
educators to high-need schools.
Continue support for innovation, such as charter schools,
diverse provider models and techniques that effectively integrate
technology into appropriate aspects of teaching, learning and
management.
Fund R&D on promising ways to improve school and student
performance.
______
[Endorsements from the Business Coalition for Student
Achievement (BCSA) follows:]
Coalition Members as of March 2, 2007
Accenture
AeA
A.O. Smith Corporation
Eli Broad, Philanthropist/Businessman
Business Coalition for Education Excellence (NJ)
The Business-Higher Education Forum
Business Roundtable
California Business for Education Excellence
Chamber of Commerce of Fargo Moorhead
The Connecticut Business and Industry Association
Con-Way
Corporate Voices for Working Families
Eastman Chemical Company
EDS
Education Industry Association
Educational Options, Inc.
EMC
Ernst & Young
GlaxoSmithKline
Greater Dallas Chamber of Commerce
The Greater El Paso Chamber of Commerce
Hewlett-Packard
IBM
Illinois Business Roundtable
Indiana Chamber of Commerce
Intel
Jefferson Parish Workforce Business Center
Kalispell Area Chamber of Commerce
Kaplan K-12 Learning Services
The McGraw Hill Companies
MetroWest Chamber of Commerce
Micron Technology, Inc.
Microsoft
Minnesota Business Partnership
Minority Business RoundTable
Montana Chamber of Commerce
Motorola
Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce
National Association of Manufacturers
National Center for Educational Accountability
National Defense Industrial Association
National Roofing Contractors Association
Nationwide
Nevada Manufacturers Association
New Jersey Chamber of Commerce
New Mexico Business Roundtable
Ohio Business Roundtable
Oklahoma Business Education Coalition
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation
Prudential Financial, Inc.
Rhode Island Education Partnership
SAS
ScienceCompanion
Semiconductor Industry Association
Siemens Foundation
Software & Information Industry Association
State Farm
TechNet
Texas Instruments
Union Pacific
Unisys Corporation
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
______
[The prepared statement of Dr. Blumberg follows:]
Prepared Statement of Linda J. Blumberg, Ph.D., Principal Research
Associate, the Urban Institute
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kline, and distinguished Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to talk with you today
about the problems faced by those without health insurance, and to
share my thoughts on strategies for expanding coverage to them. I
appreciate the fact that this Committee is considering this important
issue. While I am an employee of the Urban Institute, this testimony
reflects my views alone, and does not necessarily reflect those of the
Urban Institute, its funders, or its Board of Trustees.
The problems associated with being uninsured are now widely known.
There is a substantial body of literature showing that the uninsured
have reduced access to medical care, with many researchers concluding
that the uninsured often have inferior medical outcomes when an injury
or illness occurs. Urban Institute researcher Jack Hadley reviewed 25
years of research and found strong evidence that the uninsured receive
fewer preventive and diagnostic services, tend to be more severely ill
when diagnosed, and receive less therapeutic care.\1\ Studies found
that mortality rates for the uninsured within given time periods were
from 4 to 25 percent higher than would have been the case had the
individuals been insured. Other research also indicated that improving
health status from ``fair'' or ``poor'' to ``very good'' or
``excellent'' would increase an individual's work effort and annual
earnings by as much as 20 percent.
But while the negative ramifications of being without health
insurance are clear, the number of uninsured continues to grow.
According to an analysis by my colleagues John Holahan and Allison
Cook, the number of nonelderly people without health insurance climbed
by 1.3 million between 2004 and 2005, bringing the rate of uninsurance
to just under 18 percent of this population.\2\ The vast majority of
this increase, 85 percent, was among those with incomes below 200
percent of the federal poverty level. About 77 percent of the increase
in the uninsured was attributable to adults. In recent years, the share
of the population with employer-sponsored insurance has fallen, while
the share of those with public insurance coverage has risen, but by
smaller amounts. This pattern has persisted since 2000.
Why is the rate of employer-sponsored insurance falling, causing
the number of uninsured to climb in recent years? First and foremost is
increasing premium costs that have outstripped wage and income
growth.\3\ But additionally, overall employment has been shifting away
from firms with traditionally high rates of employer-based insurance
coverage, moving workers into the types of firms that are significantly
less likely to offer coverage to their workers.\4\ For example,
employment in medium size and large firms has fallen, and growth has
occurred among the self-employed and small firms. Employment has
shifted from manufacturing, finance, and government to services,
construction, and agriculture. There also has been a population shift
toward the South and the West, regions with lower rates of employer-
based coverage and higher uninsurance.
The good news is that policymakers at both the federal and state
levels are talking about the need to expand health insurance coverage
again, and some states are already taking action. While proposals are
being developed in a number of states and at the federal level as well,
I will focus my attention here on two of the most notable state
designs, that of Massachusetts and California. I chose both states as
they delineate potential avenues for bipartisan compromise on this
issue. In addition, Massachusetts is the only state that has already
passed legislation, enacting far-reaching health care reform, and
California is, of course, the largest state, and hence what it can
accomplish has significant implications for the country as a whole. I
treat these two approaches as case studies in policy design and use
them to highlight the types of features required to achieve significant
coverage expansions as well as the policy challenges faced by such an
undertaking.
Massachusetts
There are four main components to the landmark health care reform
legislation enacted in Massachusetts in April 2006: \5\
A mandate that all adults in the state have health
insurance if affordable coverage is available (an individual mandate);
A small assessment on employers that do not provide
coverage to their workers;
A purchasing arrangement--the Commonwealth Health
Insurance Connector (the Connector)--designed to make affordable
insurance available to individuals and small businesses and to provide
subsidized insurance coverage to qualifying individuals/families; and
Premium subsidies to make coverage affordable.
Theoretically, these components of reform could move the state to
near-universal coverage; however, many practical issues remain to be
resolved.
For example, the individual mandate to purchase health insurance
will not be enforced unless affordable products are available. The
definition of ``affordability'' and how it will vary with family
economic circumstance was not provided in the legislation, and is left
up to the board of the Connector. This definitional issue is clearly
critical to the success of the Massachusetts reform and any other
policy approach to expanding health insurance coverage. Ideally, each
family would be subsidized to an extent that would allow them to
purchase coverage within the standard set. Setting the affordability
standard at a high level (for example, individuals being expected to
spend up to 15 percent of income on medical care) would mean that the
individual mandate would have a broad reach and thus increase coverage
a great deal. This would be true because individuals and families would
be expected to pay a considerable amount toward their insurance
coverage, more insurance policies would be considered ``affordable'' by
this standard, and thus the individual mandate would apply to more
people. But setting the standard at such a level would also place a
heavy financial burden on some families and might be considered
unreasonable. Setting a low affordability standard (for example,
expecting individuals to spend only up to 6 percent of their income on
health care) would ease the financial burden of the mandate on
families, but would increase the per capita government subsidy required
to ensure that individuals could meet such a standard. To the extent
the revenues dedicated to the program were not sufficient as a
consequence, either further revenue sources would be required or
enrollment in the subsidized plans would have to be capped, and some
would have to be excluded from the requirement to purchase coverage.
Under the Massachusetts plan compromise, each employer of more than
10 workers that does not make a ``fair and reasonable'' contribution to
their workers' insurance coverage (with ``fair and reasonable'' yet to
be defined) will be required to pay a per worker, per year assessment
not to exceed $295 (this amount would be prorated for part-time and
seasonal workers). This very modest employer payment requirement was
the product of a compromise between those concerned about a potential
decline in employer involvement in the financing of health care and
strong resistance from the business community (especially small
businesses) to potentially burdensome employer payroll tax assessments.
The assessment decided upon had widespread support in the business
community and was acceptable to consumer advocates as well. This broad-
based support was critical for passage of the legislation and continues
to prove pivotal in garnering continued support through various
implementation challenges.
All employers are also required to set up Section 125 plans for
their workers, so that workers can pay their health insurance premiums
with pretax dollars, even if their employers do not contribute toward
their coverage. Those employers who do not establish Section 125 plans
may be required to pay a portion of the care their employees receive
through the state's Uncompensated Care Pool, which provides hospital
care to low-income uninsured persons.
Ideally, the reform would not cause significant disruption to
existing insurance arrangements between employers and their workers. As
currently designed, most employers, particularly large employers
already offering group coverage, likely will continue to offer
coverage. The benefits of risk pooling, control over benefit design,
and lower administrative costs associated with purchasing through a
large employer will not change under this reform. The situation for
small employers is likely to be somewhat different, however.
By allowing workers to purchase coverage on a pre-tax basis through
Section 125 plans, the Massachusetts reform reduces the incentive for
small employers to offer coverage to their workers independently. The
current law tax exemption for employer-sponsored insurance is an
important motivator for small employers to offer insurance coverage
today, and the Connector combined with Section 125 plans would level
the tax playing field between employer provision and individual
purchase. This is a more important issue for small firms than for large
firms because small firms face significantly higher administrative
costs, do not receive the risk pooling benefits of large firms, and are
more frequently on the cusp between offering and not offering coverage.
Decisions small firms make under the reform will, however, be quite
dependent upon the particular plan offerings in the Connector, how
attractive they are, and whether negotiating power in the Connector
will be sufficient to generate true premium savings.
The attractiveness of the benefits offered in the Connector, and
its size as a consequence, will have important implications for its
negotiating power--the higher the enrollment, the greater the
Connector's ability to be a tough price negotiator and to create
savings in the system. This economic reality of purchasing pools may be
somewhat at odds with those who would like to see organized public
purchasers playing a small role in relation to private insurance
providers. Thus, there is a tension for those that would like to have
plans that are offered in such a purchasing pool be low cost/high cost
sharing/limited provider network plans, as such plans have not proved
popular with most purchasers. Therefore, if a purchasing pool limits
its offerings to such plans, it may be unable to reach a critical mass
for negotiating purposes.
At this time, the Connector will require each insurer to offer four
different benefit packages of defined levels of actuarial value. In
another context, offering such variety in benefit generosity could lead
to adverse selection, with the healthy attracted to the high cost
sharing/limited benefit plans and premiums in the comprehensive plans
spiraling upwards. However, in order to protect the viability of more
comprehensive plans and thus to better meet the needs of those with
serious medical care needs, the Connector board has instituted a policy
designed to counteract such a harmful dynamic. Premiums for each
benefit plan will be set as if the enrollees in all of the insurer's
plan options were enrolled in that plan. In this way, the premium for a
particular plan is not a function of the actual health care risks of
those people who voluntarily enroll in it. This is clearly an important
first step to ensuring broader sharing of high health care risks. It
may also be necessary for further risk adjustment across insurers, but
that remains to be seen, and modifications within the Connector can be
made if appropriate.
In addition to selling unsubsidized health insurance to individual
and small employer purchasers, the Connector will also operate the
Commonwealth Care Health Insurance Plan (CCHIP), which will provide
subsidized coverage for those with household incomes up to 300 percent
of the federal poverty level (FPL). CCHIP has no deductibles, has cost-
sharing requirements that increase with income, and does not charge
premiums for those individuals with incomes below 100 percent of FPL.
Premiums on a sliding scale are charged for those between 100 and 300
percent of FPL.
It is widely accepted that those with incomes below 100 percent of
FPL have virtually no ability to finance their own health care needs,
and that those of modest incomes require significant assistance as
well. Deductibles and substantial cost-sharing responsibilities are
likely to prevent the low-income population from accessing medical care
when necessary; hence, the benefit package offered through CCHIP is
considerably more comprehensive than that typically offered in the
private insurance market. These policies are available only to those
who have not had access to employer-based insurance in the past six
months, with the hope of reducing the displacement of private employer
spending by public spending.
California
The health care reform proposal Governor Schwarzenegger developed
is an ambitious one. Many of its general components are similar to
those implemented in Massachusetts, but the details are quite different
and illustrate the types of choices that policymakers can make, and the
very significant implications that these details can have. The
components of the California proposal are the following:
an individual mandate that all Californians have at least
a minimum level of health insurance coverage;
a ``pay or play'' employer mandate requiring that all
firms with 10 or more workers pay a 4 percent payroll tax, a liability
which can be offset by employers' contributions to health insurance for
their workers and their dependents;
a purchasing arrangement that would provide a guaranteed
source of insurance coverage for individuals to purchase the minimum
level of benefits required to satisfy the mandate and that also would
provide subsidized insurance to eligible individuals;
income-related subsidies to make premiums affordable for
those with incomes up to 250 percent of FPL.
The minimum health insurance coverage required to satisfy the
individual mandate under the California proposal is a $5,000 deductible
plan with a maximum out-of-pocket limit of $7,500 per person and
$10,000 per family. This is a package that would require substantially
more cost sharing than is typical of private insurance today, and thus
can be expected to be made available at premium levels significantly
below typical employer-sponsored insurance premiums.
This minimum plan would be made available on a guaranteed issue
basis through a new purchasing pool that the Managed Risk Medical
Insurance Board (MRMIB) would run. MRMIB is a government agency and
currently runs the Healthy Family's Program (California's SCHIP
program) and the state's high-risk pool. In the past, the agency also
ran a small employer health insurance purchasing pool. It is an agency
experienced in health insurance purchasing, contracting, enrollment,
and eligibility determination and has a structure for all the
administrative tasks necessary for these roles; thus, it is an
excellent choice for basing a new purchasing pool under a broad reform.
However, the policy that would be offered is likely to be
unattractive to workers with modest incomes, in particular to those
over 250 percent of FPL who would be ineligible for subsidized coverage
and often could not afford to pay such a high deductible. Such a family
would still be severely limited in their financial access to medical
services, even with the guaranteed issue policy. Those that do not buy
policies in the new pool, do not have employer insurance offers, and
are not eligible for subsidized coverage would be required to purchase
a policy in the existing private non-group market, and would face all
the shortcomings inherent in that market. This would be a particularly
difficult option for older workers and workers with significant health
care needs, many of whom may not be able to obtain a policy at all in
that market. Even those lucky enough to be offered a policy would
likely be unable to obtain an affordable policy with more comprehensive
benefits and effective access to needed medical care.
The ``pay or play'' mechanism is a tool for financing the new low-
income subsidies proposed under the plan. This 4 percent payroll tax
liability creates a significantly higher employer financial
responsibility than does Massachusetts's employer assessment. Employers
with fewer than 10 workers are exempt from the tax. Consequently, the
reform should not impact the smallest employers at all but will provide
new subsidies and a source for buying coverage for their low-income
workers.\6\ And because the vast majority of large firms already
provide health insurance coverage to their workers (98 percent of firms
with 100 or more workers offered health insurance nationally, as of
2004 \7\), the biggest impact of this reform would be on the employers
and workers in firms of 10 to 100 workers.
The proposal provides some competing incentives that make it
uncertain whether workers in currently non-offering small firms (of 10
or more workers) would prefer to have their employers begin to offer
coverage or would prefer to purchase coverage on their own and have
their employers pay the payroll tax. First, small firms do not tend to
be efficient purchasers of health insurance. The administrative loads
associated with small group insurance can be quite high and might be
significantly higher than those in the new purchasing pool. This
imbalance, combined with the inability of small groups to spread their
health care risks broadly, implies a significant incentive for workers
to prefer enrolling in pool-based coverage. This incentive would be
particularly strong for lower-wage workers in small firms, who could
enroll in a subsidized comprehensive health insurance product through
the purchasing pool.
However, the payroll tax assessment works in the reverse direction
of these incentives. Economists believe that the burden of employer-
paid payroll taxes made on behalf of workers are effectively passed
back to workers through lower wages paid over time. In the case of the
California proposal, this would mean that workers whose employers opt
to pay the tax would experience declines in their incomes relative to
what their incomes would have been without the reform, and would then
be required to purchase health insurance directly. In essence, they
would be paying twice--once for the payroll tax and once for the
insurance policy; they would get no credit toward the purchase of
health insurance to account for the fact that their employers (and
indirectly the employees themselves) were paying the payroll tax.
While workers eligible for generous subsidies on a comprehensive
health insurance package might still be better off this way than having
their employer offer insurance, the same is unlikely to be true for
unsubsidized workers. The only unsubsidized product available in the
new purchasing pool would be the very high deductible policies. As
noted, these policies may be very unattractive to modest-income workers
with incomes over 250 percent of FPL, who would be ineligible for
subsidized coverage. Given also the substantial shortcomings of the
current nongroup market, these issues taken together might create
significant incentives for workers to ask their employers to begin
offering health insurance in exchange for wage reductions commensurate
with their employers' contributions.
The proposal also would make all children (including undocumented
residents) in families with incomes up to 300 percent of FPL eligible
for state subsidized health insurance, all legal adult residents with
incomes up to 100 percent of FPL eligible for Medicaid at no cost, and
those between 100 and 250 percent of FPL eligible for subsidized
coverage through the new state purchasing pool. These expansions would
cover quite comprehensive health insurance plans and would, on their
own, lead to significant expansions of coverage in the state. These
policies also would have important implications for employees of small
firms in California, since over half of California's uninsured workers
are employed by firms with fewer than 25 workers, and approximately
two-thirds of the uninsured workers employed in these small firms have
incomes that would make them eligible for subsidized insurance.\8\ The
lower-income workers in these small firms therefore account for over a
third of all uninsured workers in California.
Conclusions
A number of states are already developing comprehensive health
insurance reform plans. However, many more states will not be able to
accomplish significant reforms on their own due to financial and
political constraints. Indeed, it is not feasible for any state to
finance any of the plans and proposals currently on the table without
accessing at least some federal matching funds. As a consequence,
federal legislators are now engaged in discussions and policy
development of their own. Federal involvement will be necessary to
spread further the early successes some states are seeing.
Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to delineate what
I consider to be the most critical components for the effective
development of universal or near universal health insurance coverage
within a private insurance-based system.
The first component is a comprehensive, subsidized set of insurance
benefits for the low- and modest-income population. Subsidies should be
directed to individuals (as opposed to employers), should increase with
increasing need, and should be sufficient to ensure that adequate
benefits are made available to meet health care needs at an affordable
price. While a high deductible plan may be perfectly adequate coverage
for a high-income person, it will not be adequate to meet the needs of
someone with more modest means, and meaningful reform must take that
into account.
The second component is a guaranteed source of insurance coverage
for all potential purchasers. The current nongroup insurance markets
are simply inadequate to do the job. The guaranteed source of coverage
will most likely need to take the form of an organized purchasing
entity, such as newly established health insurance purchasing pools, or
it may also be developed using existing organized purchasers, such as
government employee benefits plans, state high risk pools, or State
Children's Health Insurance Programs.
The third component is a mechanism for broadly spreading the costs
associated with those who have the greatest need for health care
services. Importantly, the health care risks of those that enroll in a
guaranteed accessible insurance plan should not determine the premiums
charged to individuals in that plan. Instead, the premiums should be
based on what the premiums would be if a broader population enrolled.
In this way, choice of varied benefit packages can be maintained, and
the needs of the most vulnerable Americans can be met.
The fourth component is either an individual mandate or an
individual mandate combined with a ``light'' employer mandate. Absent
automatic enrollment in a fully government-funded insurance system, an
individual mandate is necessary to achieve universal coverage. Many
advocate combining an employer mandate of some type with an individual
mandate to ensure continued employer responsibility in health care.
Such employer mandates raise a number of difficult political,
distributional, and legal issues. But Massachusetts, for example, was
able to enact a non-burdensome employer mandate that should be
considered a model of political compromise.
Designing such a reform, complex as it may sound at first, is
actually the easy part. The most difficult truth is that financial
resources are necessary for ensuring accessible, affordable, and
adequate insurance for all Americans. If the political and public will
strengthens sufficiently in this regard, there are many options for
identifying the necessary funding. If asked for my personal favorite, I
would suggest we turn to a redistribution of the existing tax exemption
for employer-sponsored insurance, providing those with the greatest
needs the greatest assistance, as opposed to the opposite, which is
true today. The current level of this tax expenditure is sufficient to
finance comprehensive health care reform and is already dedicated to
subsidizing health care insurance. The current spending is not
particularly effective in expanding coverage, however, since it
subsidizes most those who are most likely to purchase coverage even in
the absence of any subsidy. And while the notion of restructure the
current tax subsidy has been somewhat politically taboo in the past,
the president himself has recently opened the political conversation
regarding how best to spend that that money.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to share my thoughts on
these important issues.
endnotes
\1\ J. Hadley. 2003. ``Sicker and Poorer--The Consequences of Being
Uninsured: A Review of the Research on the Relationship between Health
Insurance, Medical Care Use, Health, Work, and Income,'' Medical Care
Research and Review 60(2): 3S-75S.
\2\ J. Holahan and A. Cook. 2006. ``Why Did the Number of Uninsured
Continue to Increase in 2005?'' Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the
Uninsured Issue Paper. http://www.kff.org.
\3\ M. Chernew, D. Cutler, and P. Kennan. 2005. ``Increasing Health
Insurance Costs and the Decline in Insurance Coverage,'' Health
Services Research 40(4): 1021-39; T. Gilmer and R. Kronick. 2005.
``It's the Premiums, Stupid: Projections of the Uninsured through
2013,'' Health Affairs Web Exclusive (April 5): w5-143-w5-151; J.
Hadley. 2006. ``The Effects of Recent Employment Changes and Premium
Increases on Adults' Insurance Coverage,'' Medical Care Research and
Review 63(4): 447-76.
\4\ J. Holahan and A. Cook. 2006. ``Why Did the Number of Uninsured
Continue to Increase in 2005?'' Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the
Uninsured Issue Paper. http://www.kff.org.
\5\ J. Holahan and L. Blumberg. 2006. ``Massachusetts Health Care
Reform: A Look at the Issues,'' Health Affairs Web Exclusive, September
14: w432-43.
\6\ It should be noted that this ``carve-out'' of employers with
fewer than 10 workers may provide incentives for the smallest employers
to stay small and may also create incentives for somewhat larger
employers to break up into smaller pieces.
\7\ Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Medical Expenditure
Panel Survey--Insurance Component 2004, calculations based on published
tables, tables available at http://www.meps.ahcpr.gov/.
\8\ Author's estimates from the 2004/2005 March Current Population
Survey.
______
[Letter submitted by Dr. McBride follows:]
Wyoming Department of Education,
Cheyenne, WY, March 2, 2007.
Hon. Michael Enzi,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Enzi: I appreciate this opportunity to provide you
with Wyoming's collective inputs for the reauthorization of public law
107-10 (NCLB). This is a vital piece of legislation that greatly
affects Wyoming's schools and students, and we appreciate the occasion
to comment.
The Wyoming Department of Education has worked for over six months
with educators, parents, and community members to identify areas of
improvement for the reauthorization.
You and I have discussed the reauthorization of NCLB on several
occasions. In early December 2006, I asked all Wyoming districts to
provide their recommendations on what changes or adjustments should be
made to NCLB.
We have discussed the unique nature of some of our western states
and, in particular, Wyoming. The key to many of our western state's
success will be the allowance for maximum financial and academic
flexibility. As you know, one-third of our districts have 300 or less
students and these ``frontier schools'' are generally located in small,
isolated communities.
Choice is often difficult, if not an impossible option for these
schools to offer. In addition, Wyoming has three approved supplemental
service providers, each of which provides its services online. None of
these have shown real promise in addressing the needs of our struggling
districts. The solution in these areas will likely come from aggressive
staff development activities, community support and technical
assistance visits from my office.
The Wyoming Department of Education has structured its comments in
the following six areas and has included, where appropriate, what our
staff considers a ``proposed solution'' for each concern:
1. SEA Capacity Building
2. Highly Qualified Teachers
3. Assessment
4. Accountability Systems
5. Subgroup Issues
6. Funding
I appreciate your support on these issues and look forward to
having an opportunity to discuss the future of No Child Left Behind
with you.
Sincerely,
Jim McBride, Ed.D.,
Wyoming Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Wyoming is a rural state that serves 48 districts and 362 schools.
The issue of adequate state capacity to serve districts and schools is
limited due to small population and the lack of federal and state
resources. The lack of resources to provide technical assistance in
rural states impacts the following areas:
a) Hiring and retaining highly qualified department staff,
b) Availability of research based products and services,
c) Implementing quality data systems in all districts and
d) Adequate technical assistance budget.
The escalating nature of the costs of technical assistance provided
by the state is increasing as schools and districts work toward
achieving the rigorous requirements of NCLB.
Proposed Solution: In order to overcome the resource problems, we
recommend that the NCLB reauthorization include an increase in federal
administration and technical assistance funds. We also recommend that
these funds have greater flexibility so that they can be combined in
support of state and district improvement initiatives.
Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT)
The following concerns address specific teaching disciplines. While
these concerns present the greatest operational obstacles posed by NCLB
regarding HQT, the conceptual framework of NCLB and HQT recognizes that
``knowledge in a specific content'' (quality instruction) is the
greatest, single indication of student achievement. The federal
guideline for HQT limits our ability to develop and teach integrated
and diverse classes.
For example, teachers in Wyoming's small rural schools are often
assigned to teach in more than one endorsement area; this is especially
true for Social Studies, Middle School, and Special Education. NCLB
requires that a certified Social Studies teacher be highly qualified in
Geography, History, Economics, Civics and Government. In many cases,
this requirement is extraordinarily difficult to meet in Wyoming.
Additionally, most middle and secondary Social Studies classes are
offered via an integrated standards-based curriculum which includes all
four areas; subsequently, a teacher prep program that trains teachers
to instruct integrated content, such as a Social Studies Composite
major, is much more supportive of small, rural ``frontier'' schools.
These majors could be developed by our university, but must be
recognized as highly qualified by PTSB, NCLB and the U.S. Department of
Education.
Proposed Solution: Recognize teachers with a content major in
Social Studies as highly qualified in History, Geography, Economics,
and Civics and Government.
Integrated, cooperative teaching, the mainstay of the middle school
concept, is hindered by the HQT requirements of NCLB. If we could
overcome this issue, integrated instruction would probably expand to
our high schools. Without relief, it will continue to be difficult for
Wyoming districts to recruit teachers who have all of the required NCLB
endorsements.
Proposed Solution: Recognize the importance of integrated,
cooperative teaching at all levels.
In rural high schools, one special education teacher is assigned to
work with students in all content areas--and depending on the academic
needs of the student(s)--the least restrictive placement may be one in
which the SPED teacher is the teacher of record. The needs and number
of students in special education change throughout the school year;
consequently, the role of the special education teacher needs to be
flexible enough to serve students as needed.
Special educators, more than any other teaching major, are
specifically trained to provide instruction to meet the individual
learning needs and styles of each student.
Proposed Solution: Special education (SPED) teachers need to be
acknowledged as highly qualified if they are the teacher of record,
consult, or co-teach based upon the needs of the students they serve.
(Recognizing the teacher of record concept would also support
integrated instruction)
Wyoming's rural small schools do not fit into the ``one size fits
all'' plan mandated by NCLB. In addition, Wyoming's teaching
certification requirements occasionally do not match the HQT mandate;
consequently, at times, we may have teachers who are highly qualified
but do not meet the requirements for Wyoming certification.
Proposed Solution: On the surface, this seems like a problem unique
to Wyoming since the Professional Teaching Standards Board (PTSB) is a
separate organization from the Wyoming Department of Education.
However, if Wyoming's PTSB and Department of Education agree on HQT
standard, we would ask that the U.S. Department of Education and NCLB
recognize and grant HQT approval to our definitions
Assessment
Testing must reflect multiple measures, aggregated by highest score
and stability. Individual student learning will be obtained by:
a) Measures over time,
b) Focus upon growth and learning; and
c) Provision of accuracy in the system to measure growth and
learning.
By demonstrating proficiency through a growth model assessment
design, a school can better track a student's needs, strengths and
weaknesses from year-to-year. By developing a growth model format for
assessment, all student sub-groups receive the focus they need and
teachers are better prepared for grade transitions of students. Wyoming
is in its second year of a new, state assessment. After the 2006-07
academic year, growth model development would be possible.
We could continue to require proficiency of state standards, but
track a student's positive progress based on his/her skills. This would
also allow gifted and remedial students to receive differentiated
instruction, guidance and attention for growth although their skills
are at different levels.
The reporting of data must be available in a timely manner to
impact learning and be readily understandable for educators and
parents.
Proposed Solution: Develop a growth model format for assessment
that tracks student achievement based on skills yet uses state
standards to demonstrate proficiency.
Accountability Systems
Currently, Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) requires accountability
systems throughout the country to look at a single snapshot to
determine the achievement level of groups of students. This does not
offer schools/LEAs the opportunity to show how they reach individual
students.
Student achievement should reflect the gains in achievement of
individual students over time (growth models). Growth models would give
schools credit for student improvement over time by tracking individual
student achievement year to year.
Proposed Solution: Accountability systems need to move beyond a
status model of achievement and look at how ``individual student
achievement'' grows over time.
Schools and LEAs are each unique--with different students, staffs,
and cultures. Therefore, schools/LEAs must take the time and effort to
identify true needs while implementing required sanctions.
For instance, a school missing Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in
several subgroups tends to have very different needs from a school
missing AYP in only one subgroup. Under these circumstances, it may be
better for the students to have teachers receive high quality
professional development to meet the needs of their student population
rather than offering additional tutoring services from outside
provider.
It is absolutely imperative that schools and LEAs show:
a) Documentation of their needs
b) Why their selected corrective strategy will increase their
capacity to meet those needs
c) Continuous documentation of the progress toward meeting the
defined goals
d) Evaluation of the success the school
e) How it met the need and building capacity
f) That it included intense levels of technical assistance from LEA
and SEA to address true needs.
Also, the sanctions on a school/LEA must focus on the students who
missed AYP. Sanctions of Supplemental Education Services (SES) for
schools in Year Two of School Improvement make it possible for the
students eligible for the service to be completely different than the
subgroup that missed AYP. The primary benefactors of SES should be
students who did not achieve proficiency, not just any student in a
school that did not meet AYP.
Proposed Solution: The needs of schools/local education agencies
(LEA) vary. Sanctions need ``flexibility and staff capacity building''
to ensure that the needs of students are met.
Subgroup Issues
Subgroup progress should be included as part of an accountability
system.
English Language Learners: The ELL subgroup continues to be a
complex issue because of the length of time it takes for students to
achieve English proficiency in the use of academic language.
The scores of students in this subgroup should not be included in
AYP calculations until the students have reached proficiency as
established by our state English Language Proficiency assessment
(WELLA).
We should exempt ELL students from taking the Language Arts content
sections of PAWS and have them take the WELLA as a substitute to show
growth for their first three years in the country or until they have
reached English Proficiency, whichever comes first. Currently the
exemption is for one year in the country.
Students with Disabilities: All materials support retaining the
100% proficiency goal for Students with Disabilities, (SWD subgroup),
but focus on individual student growth (growth model). The student's
IEP academic focus should be considered to determine student growth in
this model.
Proposed Solution: The federal government should invest in research
and funding of NCLB considering the high level of data (student level
data), subgroup tracking, and costs of assessments such as the ELP
assessment and modified or alternate assessments.
Funding
Wyoming believes funding of NCLB, a guaranteed, stable, dedicated
threshold should be granted to all states with a significant degree of
flexibility within the state for disbursement to LEAs.
One area of concern is schools in ``improvement year 4 or 5.'' The
required development and implementation of a ``restructuring plan''
will probably be prohibitively expensive and may meet the definition of
an ``unfunded mandate.'' We would strongly suggest special funding to
address ``restructuring implementation.''
Additionally, some districts may require more funding for English
Language Learners (ELL) and others may have little or no need for
funding in that particular area. Furthermore, when funding has been
appropriately disbursed at the local and state levels, unspent funds
could be re-directed in ways that would seem to improve student
success, i.e., technical assistance. With the exception of
restructuring, the Wyoming Department of Education does not subscribe
to the belief of some that NCLB is an unfunded mandate. Rather, funding
is perceived to be adequate, especially if funding and transfer options
were less restrictive but remain accountable.
Proposed Solution: A flexible, yet defensible accounting of state
funding would allow for the diverse circumstances found within Wyoming.
Additional funds will likely be needed for restructuring
implementation.
______
[The prepared statement of Mr. Griffith follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Griffith, National Association of State
Boards of Education
Minding the Gaps
Thank you Chairman Kennedy, Chairman Miller, Senator Enzi,
Congressman McKeon, and distinguished members of the Senate and House
Education Committees for the opportunity to provide testimony to the
bicameral hearing on how to improve the No Child Left Behind Act to
close the achievement gap.
As you know, the core components of the No Child Left Behind Act--
standards, assessments, accountability, and teacher quality--are
fundamental to the work and authority of state boards of education. As
their professional membership organization, the National Association of
State Boards of Education (NASBE) is pleased to provide you with the
perspective of our members, their first-hand experiences in developing
state policies and implementing NCLB, and our organizational research
about the most effective strategies to close the achievement gap.
Today, as states, districts, and schools move forward in fulfilling
the requirements and the vision of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB),
this nation is being confronted more explicitly than ever by the wide
gaps in academic achievement that exist between successful students
(preponderantly middle and upper income whites and Asians) and those
students who are far from achieving to their potential (generally low-
income students of every race and ethnic group, students in special
education, and students attending low-performing schools). And while
large numbers of students from all backgrounds can be found in the
under-achieving groups, the situation for minorities, particularly
African-Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans, is especially
alarming. All too frequently these students carry multiple burdens, as
they are stuck in poverty, stuck in special education, and stuck in
low-performing schools.
But performance gaps don't just exist in terms of test scores.
There are also significant gaps among groups of students in terms of
dropout rates, placement in advanced classes, who gets good teachers,
and who goes to college.
At the same time, other gaps appear when it comes to system
performance. In this case, states themselves can differ markedly not
only in terms of student achievement, but in terms of the financial and
other support they offer their neediest districts. And significant gaps
in performance exist between school districts and between individual
schools, even when they are provided with equal resources and serve
families and students with roughly the same characteristics.
It is frequently noted that achievement gaps among different racial
and ethnic groups, as measured by results from the National Assessment
of Education Progress (NAEP), narrowed somewhat in the 1970s and 1980s,
only to stagnate or even widen during the 1990s. Into the 21st Century,
the most recent NAEP exams and other indicators portray a stark picture
of education gaps in America today.
What is perhaps most notable about this data is that the gap
between poor and not poor students (using eligibility for free or
reduced lunch as the qualifier for being ``poor '') is nearly identical
to the gaps between other groups.
The same is true in terms of the percentage of poor students
scoring below basic. For example, nationally 54 percent of poor
students scored below basic on the 2005 4th grade reading exam and 43
percent of poor students scored below basic on the 2005 8th grade math
exam, compared with 23 percent and 19 percent respectively for students
who are not poor.
Poor students comprise every racial and ethnic group, but the
majority of poor students are white. Indeed, in a number of states that
have small minority populations, the vast majority of poor students are
white--and yet the poor versus non-poor achievement gaps are still very
large. So while African-Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans are
disproportionately affected by poverty, policymakers seeking to improve
the achievement of all students should not think only in terms of
minorities
There is no doubt that gaps, both in terms of opportunity to learn
and achievement, show up very early, well before children get to
school. As demographer Harold Hodgkinson concludes in his 2003 report,
Leaving Too Many Children Behind:
Long before children knock on the kindergarten door--during the
crucial period from birth to age five when humans learn more than
during any other five-year period--forces have already been put in
place that encourage some children to ``shine'' and fulfill their
potential in school and life while other forces stunt the growth and
development of children who have just as much potential. The cost to
the nation in terms of talent unfulfilled and lives of promise wasted
is enormous.
It is also clear that most of the negative ``forces'' on children
are related to poverty and the educational attainment of parents.
Census and achievement data highlight these early gaps:
In 2000, about 17 percent of all children in the United
States lived in poverty (up from 15 percent in 1971), a figure higher
than for any other industrialized country.
In 1999, about one-third of all births were to single
mothers. Statistically, children raised by single parents are two to
three times more likely to live in poverty than those raised by both
parents.
Math and reading achievement data show that even at the
beginning of kindergarten, children from the lowest socio-economic
status (SES) quintile are already substantially behind their better-off
peers
A study of California children found that almost percent
of the white--Latino mathematics gap observed on the 2003 NAEP 8th
grade test is already apparent at entry to kindergarten.
Some educators are concerned that when confronted with higher
expectations and high-stakes exit exams, many struggling students will
simply choose to drop out, especially if there is a lack of support.
Evidence of an increase in dropout rates in the face of higher
standards is mixed, but without question school systems already face a
huge problem with dropout and lack-of-completion rates--and again it
mirrors the achievement data in terms of which students are most
affected.
Finally, we should acknowledge that there are also serious gaps
among states. On the 2003 NAEP 4th grade reading exam, for example, the
top eight states in the nation had an average score of 226, while the
lowest-scoring eight states had average scores below 210. Looking at
the data in another way, for the lowest 12 performing states, this
meant that nearly half of all students scored below basic, while for
the highest 12 performing states, on average 29 percent of students
scored below basic.
On the 2003 8th grade math test, there were even greater gaps, with
the highest state average at 291 and the lowest at 261. Discouragingly,
this meant that for the poorest performing state, the average state
score was below the Basic level.
And yet, despite the litany of achievement and other gaps with
which the committee members are surely familiar, there is an abundance
of the positive research on teaching, learning, and school leaders, the
emergence of data and evaluation systems that can help educators
pinpoint problems and improve practice, and the number of success
stories that can be found at the state, district, and school levels.
At the state level, Latinos in Virginia regularly score higher than
Latinos in other states on the NAEP 8th grade reading exam, and on the
2003 exam outscored white 8th graders in eight other states. All this
despite an influx of immigrants that more than doubled the state's
Latino population since 1990.
At the school level, there are literally hundreds of schools that
have made great gains in achievement levels in recent years despite
having many students from challenging backgrounds. A typical example of
such schools is Samuel Tucker Elementary in Alexandria, Virginia, which
has a student population that is 25 percent Latino, 43 percent African-
American, and 17 percent white, with 56 percent receiving free or
reduced-price lunch. Students in every subgroup beat the state average
in terms of percentage passing state math and language arts tests, but
even more impressively, the subgroup passing rates at the school nearly
equal or exceed the passing rates for whites statewide.
Despite the uneven record, state board of education members are
optimistic and convinced that there are many actions national and state
policymakers can take to close achievement gaps. But the first task for
education leaders is to do an inventory of what has been done to raise
achievement and close gaps. Simply put, we must ask ourselves a series
of tough questions about the steps that should be taken, answer them
forthrightly, and then be willing to take action where needed.
Nevertheless, there are a lot of questions, many with far-ranging
implications--and we don't presume that our recommendations are
inclusive. No one should fool themselves that the task ahead is not
enormous. There are many different but coordinated, focused, and
sustained steps and actions to be taken.
There are four key areas federal and state leaders must address if
they are to bring isolated examples of success to scale statewide. The
critical steps we have identified are areas in which a reauthorized No
Child Left Behind Act can help states systemically raise achievement
levels for all and close gap.
1. Bolster the States' technical infrastructure needed to collect,
disaggregate, and report data at the school, district, and state levels
to understand achievement patterns. States need to collect and analyze
this information in order to target low student achievement and the
corollary factors that may contribute to poor performance. In addition,
the data should enable states to identify those districts and schools
that have successfully produced high performance (particularly in areas
where low-income and diverse ethnic and racial student groups
predominate).
In short, NCLB must go beyond using data merely to identify
problems or schools ``in need of improvement.'' NCLB's exclusive focus
on state assessments and failure to make ``adequate yearly progress''
(AYP) fails to take account of the fundamental systemic and capacity
issues within schools, districts, and states that perpetuate low
achievement. This narrow view also misses out on valuable information
that could and should be used to help improve the design and
implementation of academic and support programs.
2. Ensure that States' pre-service and professional development
programs provide educators with the knowledge and skills to continually
monitor students' achievement and to intervene quickly when students
are not progressing sufficiently. Policies on certification,
professional development, school improvement planning, and intervention
must go beyond the simplistic determination of whether a teacher is
``highly-qualified'' or not and have the power to make a meaningful
difference in student performance. It is not a mystery. A substantial
body of research supports particular practices in teaching, assessment,
classroom organization, and curriculum.
3. Maintain the sharp focus on student achievement but apply
research-proven strategies and monitor their implementation and impact.
The research literature is replete with practices and strategies that
can significantly accelerate students' rates of progress.
Unfortunately, these strategies and practices remain under-utilized.
One result, for example, is that despite extensive research on early
reading development, scores from the 2005 NAEP 4th grade reading
assessment show that more than one out of every three students reads
below basic (36 percent). Students who reach 3rd or 4th grade
significantly below grade level will never catch up with their peers
because of the lack of systematic interventions to accelerate their
progress rate.
The importance of implementing strategies that focus on small but
immediate improvements and monitoring their impact cannot be
overstated. For example, utilizing goal setting, teamwork, and
monitoring of performance data, Colorado's Weld County School District
6 successfully raised overall student achievement while at the same
time reducing disparities between high- and low-income students.
Teachers introduced multiple interventions in reading, mathematics, and
writing and monitored student performance monthly and quarterly.
New flexibility needs to be incorporated into NCLB so that States
can use successful local districts and schools as laboratories for
experimenting with alternate solutions and institute computerized
feedback systems to examine not only data on outcomes, but on those
elements that may or may not correlate with outcomes (e.g., resource
allocations and staffing patterns).
4. Implement evaluation strategies to determine impact and
unintended consequences. Because closing achievement gaps and raising
performance levels for all students is such a complex undertaking,
policymakers at every level must steadfastly ask about the
effectiveness of their policies and constantly be aware that well-
intentioned initiatives or directives in one area can have unfortunate
consequences in another. This, as experience has shown, has been
especially true of the No Child Left Behind Act.
Opportunities to Learn
More broadly, there is a close relationship between closing
achievement gaps and providing all students with a real opportunity to
learn. Below are a number of recommendations to ensure an opportunity
to learn for all students for lawmakers to consider as they develop
NCLB reauthorization priorities.
1. Establish a process to assess disparities in the degree to which
different groups have access to educational opportunities. Many
minority and low-income students are disproportionately excluded from
schools, college preparatory programs, and various school activities.
It is essential to collect disaggregated data on the numbers of
students by subgroup on suspensions and expulsions, dropouts, special
education placements, as well as the numbers assigned to gifted
programs, advanced placement courses, and those who cannot participate
in school activities due to social/economic barriers (i.e., finances,
transportation). For instance, the North Carolina Advisory Commission
on Raising Achievement and Closing Gaps found that during a three-year
period, more than half of the long-term suspended students were
African-American or multi-racial, even though the African-American
student population was only 33 percent of the public school population.
2. Align clear standards and curricular frameworks to ensure that
every school uses a rigorous curriculum. The research is clear--
students who complete a strong college preparatory sequence perform
much higher on NAEP and are more likely to graduate from college.
School-based factors are those largely under the school's control, and
hence responsive to formal and informal policy decisions (e.g.,
accreditation, certification, school improvement planning, state
intervention). Based on hundreds of studies, the noted education
research Robert Marzano identified implementation of a guaranteed and
viable curriculum as the most important factor in student success.
One key aspect of delivering a rigorous curriculum is ``time.'' As
David Berliner notes, academic learning time is a complex measure of
``that part of allocated time in a subject-matter area in which a
student is engaged successfully in the activities or with the materials
to which he or she is exposed, and in which those activities and
materials are related to educational outcomes that are valued.''
Researchers have found that extensive academic engagement is a primary
factor in high-performing classrooms and schools. For example, eight
out of 10 high-poverty, high-performing schools included in the
Education Trust's Dispelling the Myth study increased instructional
time in reading and math to improve student achievement.
3. Resolve the conflicting imperatives that ask schools both to
sort students according to ability and to develop high achievement
among all students. States must provide clear and public standards of
what all students should learn at benchmark grade levels.
Unfortunately, too many States' standards lack clarity, alignment, and
consistency. In addition, longstanding policies maintain the sorting
mechanisms that work at cross-purposes with state efforts to bring
every student to high standards. In particular, low-income and minority
students who fall behind their peers during the early years often
continue to be sorted into slower-paced remedial classes that compound
their low achievement over time.
Students in high-poverty areas generally report on the lack of
educational rigor in their schools. Young people talk about teachers
who often do not know the subjects that they are teaching, counselors
who consistently underestimate their potential and place them in lower-
level courses, and a curriculum and set of expectations so miserably
low that they bore the students right out the school door.
Unfortunately, engaging curricula that ask students to think and
discuss their ideas are implemented in schools in inequitable ways;
while only 15 percent of white 12th graders are exposed to a curriculum
that asks them to complete daily ditto worksheets, nearly one-quarter
of Latino and African-American 12th graders are.
4. Facilitate equitable distribution of academic and other
resources such as quality staffing, facilities, and instructional
materials. In areas of high poverty, schools are often operating at two
and three times their intended student capacity, which reduces the
availability of important academic resources such as libraries and
computer labs. African-American students are four times as likely as
white eighth-grade students to have science classes with no access to
running water. Such basic inadequacies are coupled with less emphasis
on developing hands-on lab skills and minimal requirements for
synthesizing data and writing lab reports. Districts and schools vary
widely in how much support they provide teachers (i.e., curriculum
frameworks, bridge documents, diagnostic instruments, instructional
technology, and support personnel). The lack of resources leads to
reduction in the amount of active student engagement in learning course
content.
5. Encourage States to design policies consistent with the research
on instruction that promotes high levels of academic engagement in
order to improve student achievement. Researchers have identified an
extensive number of successful instructional strategies, and have even
demonstrated their relative effectiveness with highly diverse student
populations--yet these findings remain consistently underutilized,
particularly with students in high-need areas.
States must ensure that all policies are designed to capitalize on
the rich knowledge base on effective teaching practices. There is much
room for improvement in this area. According to one set of researchers,
``Of the 20 or more most powerful teaching strategies that cross
subject areas and have a historical track record of high payoff in
terms of student effects, we speculate that fewer than 10 percent of
us--kindergarten through university level--regularly employ more than
one of these strategies.''
6. Standards and curriculum frameworks should emphasize literacy
and writing skills at all levels and across all curricula. Reading is
the basis on which all academic successes are built, more than income,
age, ethnicity, or level of parental education.
Decades of research tell us that reading readiness is the best
predictor of 4th grade performance in both reading and math and that
students are less likely to graduate from high school if they do not
read moderately well by the end of grade 3. It is now widely accepted
that through carefully planned instruction and extended opportunities
to read and write, children can achieve success despite differences in
their home environment. During the early years, teachers must provide
the instructional scaffolding that systematically builds children's
phonological awareness, phonics, vocabulary, comprehension, reading
fluency, and writing.
In fact, when students and teachers increase the frequency of their
informative writing assessments, student scores increase not only on
state and district writing assessments, but also in mathematics,
science, social studies, and reading. Moreover, school improvement
goals that emphasize core areas--reading, writing, and math--do not
implicitly preclude substantial attention to science, social studies,
music, art, and physical education. Rather, there is a clarion call to
integrate core areas across all domains and avoid the curriculum
fragmentation that prevails, particularly in middle and high schools.
Funding
Volumes have been written about school finance, and we cannot hope
to do full justice to the topic here. However, education funding--both
the amount of money and how that money is distributed and used--is such
a key element of creating an opportunity to learn for all students and
for closing achievement gaps that we feel compelled to make several
points in this area.
First, it is important to understand that education funding is in a
watershed era. For much of the last 30 years, finance equity, and the
lawsuits on the part of poorer school districts claiming that they do
not receive their fair share of state funding, have dominated discourse
in state capitols and courtrooms.
Over the last decade, however, policymakers, educators, and judges
have been more likely to talk about adequacy: that is, what level of
funding is needed to ensure that every student receives an adequate
education. It is no accident that adequacy has emerged at roughly the
same time as the standards-based reform movement. And now that the No
Child Left Behind Act demands that students meet certain proficiency
goals, the question has naturally arisen as to whether schools and
districts have the resources necessary to bring students to these
levels. This is precisely what judges across the country have been--and
are likely to continue to be--asking. As the national Committee on
Education Finance said in its 1999 report, Making Money Matter, the
concept of adequacy is particularly useful ``because it shifts the
focus of finance policy from revenue inputs to spending and educational
outcomes and forces discussion of how much money is needed to achieve
what ends.''
For closing achievement gaps, the difference between equal and
adequate is critical, which can clearly be seen in New York City's
lawsuit against the state's funding system. As a Standard and Poor's
report points out, while the City receives a share of state aid roughly
equal to its share of the state's student population, this is ``not
necessarily an * * * adequate share, because the City enrolls a
disproportionate percentage of educationally disadvantaged students who
typically cost more to educate.'' Indeed, the S&P study found that
while the City ``enrolls 37.7 percent of the State's students, it
enrolls 62.6 percent of the State's economically disadvantaged
students, and 73.9 percent of its limited English proficient students.
* * * Both groups of students typically need additional educational
resources.''
Just how much more money disadvantaged students cost remains an
open question, but estimates commonly range from 20 percent to 40
percent more per student. But it should also be noted that such
``adequacy'' court decisions are not always just about money, but how
the money is used and distributed. Indeed, in what is widely regarded
as the first of the adequacy decisions, the Kentucky Supreme Court in
the 1989 Rose case found the entire system of school governance and
finance to be unconstitutional and essentially said that equal outcomes
for students are as important as equitable funding.
In short, adequacy, especially when applied to disadvantaged
students, is likely to involve both more funding and strategically
thought-out targeting of the money. And even the best achievement gap
strategies must be accompanied by the resources to turn effective
policies into successful practice. We appreciate the ambitious
authorization levels included in the No Child Left Behind Act. But we
hope during this reauthorization that lawmakers appreciate the funding
requirements for what they are demanding and that actual appropriations
more closely match authorized levels.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer our views on ways in which
the No Child Left Behind Act can be improved upon to better close the
achievement gap.
______
[The prepared statement of the National Association of
Secondary School Principals (NASSP) follows:]
Prepared Statement of the National Association of Secondary School
Principals (NASSP)
In existence since 1916, the National Association of Secondary
School Principals (NASSP) is the preeminent organization of and
national voice for middle level and high school principals, assistant
principals, and aspiring school leaders from across the United States
and more than 45 countries around the world. The mission of NASSP is to
promote excellence in middle level and high school leadership.
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
In October 2004, NASSP formed a 12-member practitioner-based task
force made up of principals and post-secondary educators representing
all parts of the country to study the effects of the No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB) as they applied to school leaders and the nation's
diverse education structure. Principals can no longer just speak to
narrowing the achievement gap. They must be able to make decisions that
will improve teaching and learning for all students. Closing the
achievement gaps and increasing student achievement are certainly among
the highest educational priorities of secondary school principals, and
our members accept accountability for results. We have seen gains in
student achievement that can be directly related to the law and to the
emerging conversations about improved student achievement.
Concerns remain with the fairness, consistency and flexibility with
which the law has been implemented as well as the law's provisions to
help schools build or enhance capacity among teachers and leaders to
meet student achievement mandates. The recommendations released by the
task force in June 2005 address the disconnect that exists between
policy created in Washington, D.C. and the realities that affect
teaching and learning at the school building level. NASSP strongly
believes that these recommendations reflect the real world, common
sense perspective that will help to bridge that gap and clear some of
the obstacles that affect principals and teachers as they work toward
improving student achievement and overall school quality.
Fairness--Growth Models
NASSP recommends that states be allowed to measure adequate yearly
progress (AYP) for each student subgroup on the basis of state-
developed growth formulas that calculate growth in individual student
achievement from year to year. Not only would an accountability system
based on growth models be fairer to schools, but it makes more sense
for measuring student achievement for all subgroups.
Using a single score to measure whether a student is making
progress ignores many issues, but primarily the academic growth of each
student. Any student may be proficient from year to year. However,
proficiency does not necessarily translate into individual progress.
Our members have reported variances in their students' progress as they
have moved from elementary to middle to high school. A lot of this can
be correlated to both developmental and curriculum changes, and though
these students may continue to be proficient year after year, the law
requires that principals focus on individual grade-level growth as
opposed to individual student growth.
Achievement, or improvement, models allow schools and districts to
chart performance for different groups of students each year. For
example, we compare this year's seventh-grade scores to last year's
seventh-grade scores. Such systems do not take into account the
differences in the groups of students and do not tell us whether we
really made any improvement in our instruction or in the yearly
outcomes for individual students.
In addition, focusing on that cut score encourages schools to focus
only on those students who are close to meeting that goal and not on
the educational needs of those students who may have the greatest need.
Individual student growth, reported over time from year to year, gives
teachers and administrators the best possible information about whether
the instructional needs of every student are being met.
NASSP was encouraged when the U.S. Department of Education (ED)
announced a pilot program in December 2005 that would allow up to ten
states to develop and implement growth model accountability systems.
North Carolina and Tennessee were the only states approved to implement
their systems during the 2005-2006 school year, but we believe this
breakthrough will show that schools need this information to provide
the best possible opportunity for the improvement of student academic
achievement for every child.
The growth model appropriately recognizes achievement gains of
students with disabilities and those who are English language learners.
We would like to see additional flexibility granted in the law for
growth models beyond the current safe harbor provision, which does not
track individual student growth.
Consistency--Multiple Assessments
The NASSP NCLB Legislative Recommendations also state that AYP
should not be based on the results of one test, but should be based on
the results of multiple assessments and multiple opportunities to take
the test. We strongly recommend that students be tested on a regular,
consistent basis to analyze what they have or have not learned, and
that schools be measured based on these multiple assessments. Teachers
can use the data from these assessments to develop effective strategies
to address individual student academic weaknesses and to build upon
student strengths diagnosed by the assessments.
Assessment practices that use diagnostic data, and not the
``score,'' give educators an impetus to prepare, plan, and focus on
student success--individually, student by student. To view testing
narrowly, as simply a measurement of a school's success or failure,
misses the broader point. Simply stated, the purpose of testing is to
inform instruction and improve learning. High-quality assessments that
are diagnostic in nature are the key to improving instruction and thus
student achievement. Hold educators accountable, but ensure that they
have the resources, the preparation, the training, a strong curriculum,
and useful assessment data to get the job done. If we can do that, then
our students will achieve, and our schools will have truly passed the
test.
Many of our members have also expressed concern regarding the
requirement that 95% of a school's students must be in attendance for
testing. Depending on the subgroup size designated in a particular
state and a school's average daily attendance, that single requirement
could mean not making AYP. Other factors such as mobility rates during
certain times of the year, migrant movement between states and outside
the country, and student delinquency may also play a role in school
participation rates.
For schools with astounding mobility rates--as much as a third of
the student population--participation rates pose an even greater
concern. While every effort is being made to reach the 95%
participation rate, individual schools with improving attendance rates
should not be penalized in AYP calculation.
Flexibility--Graduation Definition
NASSP advocates that the graduation rate be extended to at least
five years of entering high school. Currently, NCLB requires states to
graduate students within the ``regular'' time. Most often, this has
been determined to mean within four years; although, the U.S.
Department of Education has allowed some states to extend beyond this
traditional timeline.
NASSP wholeheartedly believes that designating a four-year
timeframe within which students must exit and graduate from high school
goes against what we know about student learning and timelines
designated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. In fact,
we should be moving in the opposite direction, allowing students
additional time to graduate if they require it, or less time if they
have reached proficiency without penalizing the school.
Students that graduate in fewer than four years should be rewarded.
This would be an area in the law to actually encourage excellence. The
recognition of high-performing students could help schools that are
nearing the target of 100% proficiency. Student performance should be
measured by mastery of subject competency rather than by seat time
currently imposed by NCLB. States that have implemented end-of-course
assessments are on the right track and should be encouraged to continue
these efforts. This feature would promote moving beyond the minimum
requirements mandated by the law.
Ultimately, individualized and personalized instruction for each
student should be our goal. NASSP has been a leader in advocating for
such positive reform strategies through its practitioner-focused
publications Breaking Ranks II: Strategies for Leading High School
Reform(tm) and Breaking Ranks in the Middle: Strategies for Leading
Middle School Reform.
Capacity Building--Funding
NASSP believes that full funding of the law is critical to provide
the capacity required for success. We recommend that funding not be
taken away as a sanction for Title I schools that are not meeting
proficiency. One of our task force members, Brent Walker from New
Hampshire, offers a compelling story concerning this issue.
Brent's rural middle school was one of the first identified as a
``school in need of improvement'' in his state. As a Title I targeted-
assistance school, he was fortunate to have access to a sizable portion
of grant money that was distributed by the state to the identified
schools to fund their respective school improvement plans. As a result,
the school's staff members were able to conduct a needs assessment and
pursue an aggressive professional development program that included two
years of school-wide one-to-one consulting. Thanks to this intensive
professional development, Brent's school has made AYP each year since
being identified for improvement. However, other schools in his state
have not had access to the same professional development funds. This is
an even greater issue when considering low-income schools that have not
achieved Title I status.
To their credit, many states are beginning to recognize the
importance of adequate funding for high standards, but that recognition
needs to trickle up to the federal level. A March 2006 report issued by
the Center on Education Policy found that in 2004 and 2005, nearly two-
thirds of the states did not have sufficient funds to provide technical
assistance to schools in need of improvement.
In addition, many school districts said that some NCLB
administrative costs were not covered by federal funds, or that federal
dollars were not sufficient to cover the costs of NCLB-required
interventions such as implementing public school choice or providing
remediation services for students performing below grade level. In
addition, in districts where they were not needed, transportation funds
could not be reprogrammed to defray these costs. We request that the
federal government increase administrative funds associated with this
law. Increased costs for schools include items such as Title I site
administrators; training and professional development; and assessment
and evaluation.
NCLB funding is being reduced at a time when schools are poised to
implement the new teacher quality and science standards, required by
NCLB law, and Title I funding for high schools is a paltry 5%--or
less--and around 15% when middle schools are included. If we are truly
serious about improving our schools, we must provide the resources that
address the problems and challenges of school reform in a comprehensive
manner from pre-kindergarten and elementary through high school and
beyond.
Closing
A few final thoughts: Principals, teachers, and other staff members
in the vast majority of schools are working hard to improve and meet
the standards of NCLB. They are implementing new strategies, improving
teaching methods, and working with parents to achieve higher student
learning. Many schools are actively seeking to accomplish what has been
asked of them.
According to the Southeast Center for Teaching Quality, high-
quality leadership was the single greatest predictor of whether or not
a high school makes AYP as defined by NCLB--greater than school size or
teacher retention. Principals should be given sufficient resources to
implement effective school reform because they are responsible for
encouraging the continuation of school reform programs that are working
and for discouraging practices that disrupt good reform programs
already underway.
NASSP promotes the improvement of secondary education and the role
of principals, assistant principals, and other school leaders by
advocating high professional and academic standards, addressing
problems school leaders face, providing a ``national voice,'' building
public confidence in education, and strengthening the role of the
principal as instructional leader. NASSP promotes the intellectual
growth, academic achievement, character development, leadership
development, and physical well-being of youth through its programs and
student leadership services, including the National Honor Society(tm),
the National Association of Student Councils(tm), and the National
Association of Student Activity Advisers(tm).
______
[Internet address to National Association of Secondary
School Principals (NASSP), ``NASSP Legislative Recommendations
for High School Reform,'' dated 2005, follows:]
http://www.principals.org/s--nassp/
bin.asp?CID=1238&DID=49743&DOC=FILE.PDF
______
[Internet address to NASSP Policy Recommendations for
Middle Level Reform, dated 2006, follows:]
http://www.principals.org/s--nassp/
bin.asp?TrackID=&SID=1&DID=54017&CID=937&VID=2&DOC=FILE.PDF
______
[The NASSP NCLB recommendations follow:]
[Letter from the National School Boards Association (NSBA)
follows:]
Letter from the National School Boards Association (NSBA)
The National School Boards Association (NSBA), representing over
95,000 local school board members across the nation, commends you for
your strong support to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA)/No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act during the 110th
Congress, and for establishing an aggressive schedule for congressional
hearings over the coming weeks. NSBA looks forward to participating in
future hearings and very much appreciates the opportunity to submit
written testimony for the record.
NSBA strongly supports the goals of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act and its subsequent reauthorizations, including the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Now that local school districts have had
five years of implementation, we urge you to fully incorporate our
recommendations for improvements to the law. Many school boards believe
that some of the current provisions in the law do not recognize the
complex factors that influence student performance. Additionally, local
school boards are concerned that the law has resulted in may unintended
consequences that must be addressed. Of utmost importance is our belief
that the current accountability framework does not accurately or fairly
assess student, school, or school district performance. NSBA believes
that the law can be amended to address key barriers to full
implementation while maintaining the core principles of the law to
improve achievement for all students.
In January 2005, NSBA officially unveiled its bill, the No Child
Left Behind Improvements Act of 2005. The bill contains over 40
provisions that would improve the implementation of the current federal
law. In June, 2006, Representative Don Young (R-AK) introduced H.R.
5709, the No Child Left Behind Improvements Act of 2006, which
incorporated all of the NSBA recommendations. Co-sponsors of H.R. 5709
included Representatives Steven R. Rothman (D-NJ-9), Rob Bishop (R-UT-
1), Todd Platts (R-PA-19), and Jo Bonner (R-AL-1). In January 2007,
Rep. Young re-introduced his bill as the No Child Left Behind Act of
2007, H.R. 648. The bill's co-sponsors to date include Representatives
Charlie Melancon (D-LA-3), Steven Rothman (D-NJ-9), Jo Bonner (R-AL-1),
Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI-11), and Todd Platts (R-PA-19), verifying
strong bi-partisan support for these important improvements to the
current law. The bill addresses the key concerns of local school boards
and would:
Increase the flexibility for states to use additional
types of assessments for measuring AYP, including growth models.
Grant more flexibility in assessing students with
disabilities and students not proficient in English for AYP purposes.
Create a student testing participation range, providing
flexibility for uncontrollable variations in student attendance.
Allow schools to target resources to those student
populations who need the most attention by applying sanctions only when
the same student group fails to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) in
the same subject for two consecutive years.
Ensure that students are counted properly in assessment
and reporting systems.
Allow supplemental services to be offered in the first
year of ``improvement''.
Strengthen federal responsibility for funding.
Require NCLB testing and reporting for non-public schools
for students receiving Title I services.
NSBA encourages you to review the No Child Left Behind Improvements
Act of 2007, H.R. 648 in its entirety. However, for your convenience we
have enclosed a copy of our Quick Reference Guide to the bill that
provides a summary of the recommended provisions along with the
rationale. We will also provide you with recommended legislative
language which should be helpful to your staff in drafting the new
bill.
Although the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 established a
rigorous but theoretical accountability system for the nation's public
schools, what has evolved in the name of accountability is a
measurement framework that bases its assessment of school quality on a
student's performance on a single assessment; and mandates a series of
overbroad sanctions not always targeted to the students needing
services; and to date not yet proven to have significant impact on
improving student performance and school performance.
We believe that by adopting our over 40 recommendations--that have
bipartisan congressional support--the goals of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act and its subsequent reauthorizations to
significantly improve the academic performance of all students would be
achieved.
NSBA very much appreciates the opportunity to submit written
testimony for the record, and we look forward to working closely with
you and your staffs to complete the reauthorization process during this
First Session of the 110th Congress.
Sincerely,
Michael A. Resnick,
Associate Executive Director.
______
[The National School Boards Association Quick Reference
Guide follows:]
National School Boards Association Quick Reference Guide
Measuring Adequate Yearly Progress: Group Size/Measuring AYP of Groups
1. The ``N'' size may be larger for school districts than for
schools.
Rationale: Larger school districts are negatively impacted by the
``N'' number designed for an individual school. If larger school
districts are to be identified as ``in need of improvement,'' a larger
``N'' number is more appropriate--of course, subject to the approval of
the state.
2. The ``N'' size for a group within a school may be increased to a
number or percentage of that school's total school enrollment to better
align with schools with large enrollments.
Rationale: The number of students within a specific subgroup may
vary, so very large subgroups should be able to have a different ``N''
number than subgroups with a very small number of students.
3. The ``safe harbor'' requirement is reduced from 10% to 5%.
Rationale: This flexibility would permit subgroups to demonstrate
progress and such recognition would provide an incentive for the
students in the subgroup as well as their families.
4. In calculating AYP, students identified in more than one group
may be represented in the count for each group as an equal fraction
totaling one student.
Rationale: This change creates a fairer approach in determining AYP
for schools with students belonging to more than one group than over
representing their count and would not adversely affect schools with
greater diversity.
Goals for Adequate Yearly Progress
5. A state may permit a school to be identified as meeting AYP when
one or more subgroups fail to meet AYP targets as long as the total
number of students in the subgroups failing to meet their AYP targets
does not exceed 10% of the total number of students counted for the
specific assessment or indicator. (This alternate method could not be
applied to the same groups for the same subject in two consecutive
years.)
Rationale: This option permits a one year deferral of a school
being identified for improvement when small numbers of students prevent
a group from making AYP.
6. Intermediate goals do not have to increase in equal increments.
Rationale: This option would give school districts flexibility in
addressing the unique needs of specific subgroups that may already be
positioned at different points to achieve full proficiency.
7. Different groups can have different rates of increase to
ultimately reach 100% proficiency.
Rationale: This option would provide school districts flexibility
in addressing the unique needs of specific groups.
Gain Scores and Other Measures of AYP Developed by the State
8. The basic AYP measurement system may be expanded to include: 1)
gain score approaches (like value added) and 2) partial credit for
meeting basic proficiency targets.
Rationale: The current accountability system, focused on ``cut
scores,'' is flawed and does not address the need to measure
performance via more than one method.
9. Alternate methods of measuring AYP for schools and/or school
districts may be substituted for the existing methodology, provided the
system is based on attaining proficiency in the 2013-14 school year and
using intermediate goals.
Rationale: States would have greater flexibility to design their
accountability systems while continuing to support the broader goals of
NCLB.
Participation Rate
10. The specific requirement for 95% test participation may be
adjusted to a range of 90% to 95% (based on criteria established in the
state plan).
Rationale: With ``N'' numbers being relatively small, meeting the
current participation requirements could be impacted by the absence of
only one or two students.
11. Students may be exempted from the participation rate
requirements on a case-by-case basis due to medical conditions, current
state laws that grant parents final decisions regarding participation
on standardized assessments and uncontrollable circumstances (e.g.
natural disaster).
Rationale: This option would recognize that there may be unique
circumstances facing students that would warrant exceptions to
participation, and such absence should not adversely impact the
performance of the entire school or school district.
12. Students determined to have ``unusual patterns of attendance''
as defined by the state education agency may be exempt from the
calculation to determine participation rate and referenced in the local
school district accountability plan. (This category of students may
include chronic truants as well as students who fail to attend school
on a regular basis because of life circumstances but continue to
maintain their official enrollment status.)
Rationale: In some communities there are students with very poor
attendance but who continue to be encouraged to remain in school rather
than drop-out. By having this option, schools would continue to
encourage such students to remain in school without the worry of the
impact on this student's performance on the school's ability to make
AYP.
13. Students not participating in the assessment and determined not
to be eligible for exemptions may be assigned a ``below basic'' score
by the school. In such cases, the school may not be identified as
failing to meet the participation rate for AYP on the basis that those
same students did not take the assessment.
Rationale: Currently a school could be labeled as ``in need of
improvement'' on the basis of performance and participation. When
calculating AYP, this option would permit a school to make AYP as long
as the AYP targets were met since the absent students are given a
``below basic'' score as part of the final AYP determination.
Students With Disabilities
14. As determined by the state, students with disabilities may be
offered an alternate assessment for the purpose of determining AYP,
provided that any such assessment is reflected by the student's IEP and
is based on the IEP team's evaluation and the services to be provided
for that student--and meets parent consent requirements for IEP's.
Rationale: The IEP team has the authority to determine the academic
requirements for the students and NCLB should not override its
authority.
15. The percentage of students statewide who may have their score
counted under this provision as meeting AYP may not exceed 3% of the
total number of students assessed.
Rationale: This percentage is consistent with the research.
16. Consistent with the student's IEP, alternate assessments may
include out of level assessments. Likewise, a student's test results
for the purpose of determining AYP may be based on gain scores toward
meeting the state standard for proficient or on an adjusted ``cut''
score for determining proficient.
Rationale: The IEP team has the authority to determine the academic
requirements for the students and NCLB should not override its
authority.
Limited English Proficient Students
17. The current regulation is codified relating to 1) first year
students in the United States, and 2) counting students as LEP for
determining AYP once they leave the group except that such count may be
extended to a third year.
Rationale: The law would be consistent with the regulatory changes
that have already been issued by the U.S. Department of Education.
18. Students may be provided an alternate assessment that is based
on making specific gains individually determined for that student
toward meeting state standards for up to three years, as determined by
the local school district.
Rationale: Such flexibility is necessary to meet the needs of
individual students who enroll in schools with wide variations in
English fluency.
19. The higher score achieved by a student who is assessed more
than once prior to the beginning of the next school year may be used as
the sole score for that student for the purposes of determining AYP.
Rationale: Students should be evaluated on their best scores
similar to SAT participation.
First Assessments
20. If a student scores proficient or above on an assessment taken
prior to the academic year in which that assessment is normally
offered, that student's score can be counted for the purpose of
determining whether AYP was met. However, if that student fails to
score at the proficient level, that student's score will not be counted
for determining AYP.
Rationale: Schools that offer such assessments more than once
should have flexibility in calculating performance using the best
possible scores.
State Flexibility by the U.S. Department of Education
21. In approving a state's NCLB accountability plan the Secretary
shall grant states flexibility to alter the federal framework to align
with the state's own accountability system.
Rationale: States have the responsibility for educating their
students and should have the authority to use state systems subject to
approval by the Secretary.
22. The Secretary may provide statutory and regulatory waivers--
including waiving requirements that are unnecessarily burdensome or
duplicative of state requirements.
Rationale: States should not have to implement federal mandates
that are inconsistent, duplicative, or add no value to state
requirements as long as those state requirements support the broader
objectives of NCLB.
23. When the Secretary approves an amendment to a state plan or
grants a waiver, that information must be published on the U.S.
Department of Education website in clear and complete language within
30 days.
Rationale: Information regarding adjustments approved by the
Secretary is not readily available. This change would ensure that all
states are informed regarding adjustments and accommodations granted by
the Secretary.
24. A waiver or state plan revision approved by the Secretary shall
be available to any other state on a case-by-case determination.
Rationale: This change would encourage equitable treatment by the
U.S. Department of Education.
Public School Choice
25. A transfer option need only be offered to those low achieving
students within the group who failed to meet their AYP targets in the
same subject for two or more years--not to all students in the school.
Rationale: Although an unintended consequence from the current law,
higher performing, more affluent students opt for the transfer, leaving
the school less likely to improve its performance in subsequent years.
26. Financial obligations for a school district to provide
transportation for a student ends when the group to which the student
belongs no longer is identified as not meeting AYP target within the
student's former school even if that school continues to be identified
as not making AYP for other reasons.
Rationale: Title I funds are already limited. Continuing such
financial obligations without the need adversely impact already limited
resources.
27. A student need only be offered the option to transfer to one
other school rather than the current interpretation of at least two
schools.
Rationale: This change would make the regulations consistent with
the intent of the law, and acknowledge the often very limited choice
options available in many small school districts.
28. The current regulation exempting students from being offered
the transfer option when health and safety are involved is codified and
the following conditions for exemption are added: 1) class-size laws,
2) overcrowding, 3) the need for mobile classrooms, construction, or
other significant capital outlays, and 4) such travel burdens as time,
safety, and unusually high per pupil costs.
Rationale: This would make the law consistent with the regulations
already issued.
Supplemental Services
29. Supplemental services may be offered in the first year that a
school is in improvement status--rather than only offering the transfer
option for that year.
Rationale: Research supports the change, and the Secretary has
already granted such an option to many states.
30. Supplemental services need only be offered to low achieving
students within the specific group that fails to make AYP in the same
subject for two or more years.
Rationale: Given the limited Title I funds available, such
resources should be targeted only to those students who have
demonstrated a need, not all Title I eligible students.
31. The state is required to consult with school districts in
developing criteria for supplemental service providers.
Rationale: Currently, providers are placed on the list with little,
if any, input from local school districts that often have relevant
information concerning their performance.
32. The state may establish a date, not later than December 15, to
permit school districts to spend portions of the 20% set-aside from
Title I not needed for such services with appropriate parent
notification.
Rationale: This would allow school districts to reallocate funds to
support other Title I initiatives for eligible students within the
district. Currently such funds cannot be released to support much
needed programs during the remainder of the school year.
33. The state is required to develop--and make available to the
public--procedures to enable local school districts to bring complaints
regarding the selection and performance of the provider, and number of
schools served by the provider if such scope of service adversely
affects the quality of service.
Rationale: Currently, local school districts have little recourse
regarding substantive complaints against the providers, forcing
unnecessary political/partisan engagements.
34. School districts may not be denied the opportunity to provide
supplemental services solely because they did not make AYP or they are
in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring status.
Rationale: Under current regulations, local school districts
identified as ``in need of improvement'' are not permitted to offer
supplemental services. This is an unnecessary restriction resulting in
costlier programs using the same teachers and facilities that would be
available with the school district as a provider. Secondly, Secretary
Spellings has already granted such exceptions to some districts.
Sanctions in General
35. Sanctions for schools and school districts will apply only when
AYP is not met by the ``same group `` for two or more consecutive years
in a subject or the ``same indicator ``--rather than applying sanctions
when different groups and/or different indicators are involved from
year to year in that subject.
Rationale: This provides a more reasonable approach in the
identification of schools. Under current law, even if a subgroup
previously not making AYP subsequently makes AYP, the school is forced
to be identified and subject for sanctions. By requiring at least a
two-year pattern of low performance, limited school resources can be
strategically targeted, and the number of schools identified would be
reduced.
36. The application of corrective action sanctions to restructure a
school district will occur when it fails to make AYP in each grade.
Rationale: This change provides a more reasonable approach and has
been approved for some states by the U.S. Department of Education.
37. Provisions of federal law requiring the restructuring of a
school or a school district shall not be implemented unless the total
number of students in the groups not scoring proficient or above
exceeds 35% of that school or school district's enrollment.
Rationale: Under current law, an entire school district could be
identified for restructuring based on as few as 50 students if that
were the ``N'' number, regardless of how large the enrollment is in the
school district. This change would acknowledge that before an entire
school district is identified for costly restructuring, the percentage
of students not meeting AYP must represent at least 35% of the total
enrollment.
38. In addition to deferring implementation of sanctions for one
year for schools and school districts that face hardships such as
natural disasters or financial difficulties, implementation may also be
deferred due to a sudden change in the enrollment of particular groups
of students in the school or within identified groups.
Rationale: This change would acknowledge that there could be very
unique circumstances facing a school district such as those school
districts receiving displaced students from the Gulf Coast hurricanes.
39. Sanctions relating to corrective action and restructuring will
be deferred in any year that appropriations for Title I is not
increased by at least $2.5 billion over the previous year until Title I
is fully funded.
Rationale: Federal funding should bear some relationship to
requirements to implement costly sanctions. Therefore, Congress should
be held accountable for its fiscal commitment.
40. Sanctions relating to corrective action and restructuring will
be deferred in any year that appropriations are not increased by at
least $2 billion over the previous year for students with disabilities.
Rationale: Federal funding should bear some relationship to
requirements to implement costly sanctions. Therefore, Congress should
be held accountable for its fiscal commitment.
Non-Public Schools
41. Students receiving Title I benefits in non-public schools shall
be given the same assessments, as public school students, with
appropriate accountability and test reporting requirements to parents
and school districts that are required by NCLB to provide consultative
services to those non-public schools.
Rationale: Non-public schools receiving federal support should be
subject to the same measures of performance and accountability as
public schools.
42. States may authorize a cessation of Title I support to a non-
public school whose Title I students as a whole do not make AYP and
perform at lower levels than the area public school(s) for three years
or more.
Rationale: Non-public schools receiving federal support should be
subject to the same measures of performance and accountability as
public schools.
______
[Letter from the National Parents and Teachers Association
(PTA) follows:]
March 13, 2007.
Hon. Edward Kennedy, Chair,
Hon. Michael B. Enzi, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Health Education, Labor and Pensions, U.S. Senate,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. George Miller, Chair,
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Ranking Member,
House Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Kennedy, Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Enzi and
Ranking Member McKeon: Thank you for convening this bicameral hearing
on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
and for allowing me this opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of
the National PTA. As national president of PTA, I represent nearly 6
million parents, teachers, students and other child advocates devoted
to the educational success of children and the promotion of parent
involvement in schools. We are greatly encouraged by the cooperation
between both sides of the Capitol, evidenced by this hearing, and we
hope it will lead to the development of a more comprehensive bill that
will be accepted widely.
PTA is a registered 501 (c)(3) nonprofit organization that prides
itself on being a powerful voice for children, a relevant resource for
parents, and a strong advocate for public education. Membership in PTA
is open to anyone who is concerned with the education, health, and
welfare of children and youth. Since its founding in 1897, PTA has
reminded our country of its obligations to children and provided
parents and families with a powerful voice to speak on behalf of every
child. PTA strives to provide parents with the best tools to help their
children succeed in school and in life. With more than 25,000 local,
council, district, and state PTAs in the 50 states, the District of
Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Department of Defense Dependents
Schools overseas, membership in PTA is open to anyone who supports the
Mission and Purposes of PTA.
The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) in 2001 as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) took great
strides towards providing accountability for schools to ensure that
every student becomes proficient in math and reading. PTA is looking
forward to science being included in the equation, and, we hope this
will help to create more jobs and opportunities for students in
cutting-edge fields of study. Keeping the United States competitive in
a global market was a major priority during the last reauthorization;
PTA hopes this priority will continue as Congress looks to reauthorize
the law. In addition, PTA continues to support the original intent of
ESEA in helping children of low-income families receive a high-quality
education equal to their economically-advantaged peers.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 provided an excellent outline
of accountability. It is PTA's hope that reauthorization of the law
will shore up some of the items that were overlooked during the last
reauthorization, or found to be flawed during implementation. Congress
has an excellent opportunity to fine-tune this law to make it more
effective in reaching the goal of 100 percent proficiency by the 2013-
2014 school year.
The PTA believes it is imperative that parents know exactly why
their child's school is failing, what the state is doing about it, and
the options available to parents--all in a very clear and
understandable manner. In its current form, NCLB does not give explicit
instructions to the state or local education agency (SEA and LEA,
respectively) regarding how and when they should involve parents.
Moreover, there is no unified, consistent method for an LEA to keep
their parents notified of how their child's school is doing and what
actions the school is taking to become proficient under NCLB.
The PTA believes that including parental involvement specifically
within the Committee's objectives will enhance substantially
opportunities for parents to become and remain involved in their
child's education. In addition, expansion of Parental Information and
Resource Centers (PIRCs) will improve parental involvement in Title I
schools. A PIRC can be extremely useful in not only helping parents
with their questions and concerns, but also in providing ``technical
assistance'' to those schools not achieving Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP) for two years. By supporting this provision, PIRCs can continue
to be a vital tool for parents, teachers, and the LEA.
PTA's interests are not limited to parent involvement. The
Committee needs to take a critical look at how to ensure schools
include as many students as possible in their accountability standards.
ESEA was established to provide a helping hand to those students who
need to help the most. More attention needs to be paid to these
students and not the overall school. Finding a way for individual
students to be tracked will greatly enhance our ability to identify
their strengths, weaknesses, and specific assistance they need to
improve their academic skills.
Supplemental Education Services should be better publicized and the
process to become one of these services needs to encourage
participation rather than serve as an obstacle. The reauthorization
must provide states the flexibility to offer unique services that will
enhance a student's education.
The Committee should also explore ways in which a more
comprehensive view of student progress can be assessed and measured.
Reading, math, and science are extremely important to student academic
success, but do not overlook the importance of art, music, civics,
history and other core subjects that are critical to the development of
the whole child.
It is imperative to ensure the resources that help schools,
districts and states meet the goals of this important legislation. As
states continue to implement the provisions of NCLB, schools across
America are working hard to improve academic results for all children.
Having the necessary resources is crucial to its success.
Through all of the changes the Committee may contemplate in the
reauthorization of ESEA, PTA urges you to consider how it will affect
parents and how you can provide a way for them to become more involved.
There is little incentive and even less accountability in the current
law for SEAs and the LEAs to include parents in critical decisions that
affect their child's learning. While no state can force a parent to be
involved, the more opportunities that exist, the better chance a parent
will become and remain active. By mandating what a state MUST do and by
having some part of the state and federal departments of education
ensuring all parent involvement sections are being followed, more
parents will find opportunities to take a much larger role in their
child's education.
The PTA thanks you for your tireless work on behalf of our nation's
children. We look forward to working with you throughout the
reauthorization. Our members stand ready to assist you in any way they
can.
Sincerely,
Anna Weselak,
PTA National President.
______
[Whereupon, at 12:09 p.m., the committees were adjourned.]