[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EDUCATION IN THE NATION: EXAMINING
THE CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
FACING AMERICA'S CLASSROOMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 10, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-3
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
Available via the World Wide Web:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
64-229 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin George Miller, California,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Senior Democratic Member
California Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Judy Biggert, Illinois Donald M. Payne, New Jersey
Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Virginia
Duncan Hunter, California Lynn C. Woolsey, California
David P. Roe, Tennessee Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania Carolyn McCarthy, New York
Tim Walberg, Michigan John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio
Richard L. Hanna, New York David Wu, Oregon
Todd Rokita, Indiana Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Larry Bucshon, Indiana Susan A. Davis, California
Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Timothy H. Bishop, New York
Kristi L. Noem, South Dakota David Loebsack, Iowa
Martha Roby, Alabama Mazie K. Hirono, Hawaii
Joseph J. Heck, Nevada
Dennis A. Ross, Florida
Mike Kelly, Pennsylvania
[Vacant]
Barrett Karr, Staff Director
Mark Zuckerman, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 10, 2011................................ 1
Statement of Members:
Kline, Hon. John, Chairman, Committee on Education and the
Workforce.................................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Miller, Hon. George, senior Democratic member, Committee on
Education and the Workforce................................ 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Statement of Witnesses:
Bennett, Hon. Tony, Ph.D., Indiana Superintendent of Public
Instruction................................................ 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Coulson, Andrew J., director, Center for Educational Freedom,
Cato Institute............................................. 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 21
Keegan, Lisa Graham, founder, Education Breakthrough Network. 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 15
Mitchell, Ted, president and CEO, Newschools Venture Fund.... 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
EDUCATION IN THE NATION: EXAMINING
THE CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
FACING AMERICA'S CLASSROOMS
----------
Thursday, February 10, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Washington, DC
----------
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room
2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Kline [chairman
of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Kline, Petri, Biggert, Hunter,
Roe, Thompson, Walberg, DesJarlais, Hanna, Rokita, Bucshon,
Gowdy, Barletta, Roby, Miller, Kildee, Andrews, Scott, Woolsey,
Hinojosa, Tierney, Kucinich, Wu, Holt, Davis, Grijalva, Bishop,
Loebsack, and Hirono.
Also present: Representative Polis.
Staff present: James Bergeron, Director of Education and
Human Services Policy; Kirk Boyle, General Counsel; Casey
Buboltz, Coalitions and Member Services Coordinator; Daniela
Garcia, Professional Staff Member; Jimmy Hopper, Legislative
Assistant; Amy Raaf Jones, Education Policy Counsel; Angela
Jones, Executive Assistant; Barrett Karr, Staff Director; Ryan
Kearney, Legislative Assistant; Brian Melnyk, Legislative
Assistant; Molly McLaughlin Salmi, Deputy Director of Workforce
Policy; Mandy Schaumberg, Oversight Counsel; Linda Stevens,
Chief Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel; Kate Ahlgren,
Minority Detailee, Education; Tylease Alli, Minority Hearing
Clerk; Jody Calemine, Minority General Counsel; Jamie Fasteau,
Minority Senior Education Policy Advisor; Sophia Kim, Minority
Legislative Fellow, Education; Brian Levin, Minority New Media
Press Assistant; Kara Marchione, Minority Senior Education
Policy Advisor; Megan O'Reilly, Minority Labor Counsel; Helen
Pajcic, Minority Education Policy Advisor; Julie Peller,
Minority Deputy Staff Director; Alexandria Ruiz, Minority
Administrative Assistant to Director of Education Policy;
Melissa Salmanowitz, Minority Press Secretary; and Mark
Zuckerman, Minority Staff Director.
Chairman Kline [presiding]. A quorum being present, the
Committee on Education and the Workforce will come to order.
Good morning, everybody.
Welcome to our witnesses and to our guests.
There are few issues more important to the strength of the
nation's economy than education. In most cases, an individual's
success in the workforce depends upon his or her success in the
classroom. Each month, the national unemployment data reflect
this reality. While today 9 percent of the workforce is
unemployed, over 14 percent of adults without a high school
diploma are looking for a job.
The numbers are more startling when compared to college
graduates, who are currently experiencing an unemployment rate
of over 4 percent. The challenges brought on by an inadequate
education aren't just reserved for the unemployed. They extend
to those with a job as well.
In 2009, workers without a high school diploma earned less
than $23,000, while workers with a bachelor's degree earned
nearly 3 times that amount. These statistics remind us of the
challenges facing workers who do not succeed academically.
Without a doubt, education is critical to the strength of
America's workforce and economy.
That is why the current state of our nation's education
system is so troubling. Only 69 percent of students earn their
high school diploma. According to the nation's report card, an
eighth grade student has only a 30 percent chance of being able
to read at grade level.
Reading and math scores for teens on the verge of
graduation remain largely unchanged since 1973. Students who do
graduate are often unprepared to compete in the workforce.
Employers continue to express their concerns that new workers
too often lack basic skills in reading, writing and math.
As we consider these disturbing trends, we can't ignore
that over the last 45 years, the federal government has become
increasingly involved in the day-to-day operation of our
schools. We have all heard a teacher or parent describe how
rules imposed by Washington often stifle innovative solutions
taking place in the classroom or undermine the freedom to
choose a school that best fits a child's needs.
We can no longer accept the status quo that says Washington
has all the answers and more money will fix a broken education
system. Since 1980, federal spending on education has increased
by 425 percent, yet student achievement has failed to improve.
Clearly, the current system isn't working. It is time we stop
measuring our commitment to education solely by the dollars we
spend.
The good news is that the tide is turning. Dedicated
reformers, concerned citizens and gifted filmmakers have
sparked a debate that is spreading across the country. Their
efforts have awakened a desire for a new approach to education
in the country. State and local communities are moving forward
with innovative solutions to improve accountability, parental
involvement, results-based hiring and school choice.
Washington should not stand in the way of these and other
meaningful reforms that improve the quality of education for
our children. That is why we are here today. Congress must
understand the challenges facing our education system, hear the
concerns of state and local leaders intimately involved with
what goes on in the classroom and begin to chart a different
course that ensures the innovation and accountability being
driven now at the local level can succeed.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and will now
yield to the ranking member, Mr. Miller, for his opening
statement.
[The statement of Mr. Kline follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Kline, Chairman,
Committee on Education and the Workforce
A quorum being present, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce will come to order.
Good morning and welcome to our witnesses and guests.
There are few issues more important to the strength of the nation's
economy than education. In most cases, an individual's success in the
workforce depends upon his or her success in the classroom.
Each month the national unemployment data reflect this reality.
While today 9 percent of the workforce is unemployed, 14.2 percent of
adults without a high school diploma are looking for a job. The numbers
are more startling when compared to college graduates, who are
currently experiencing an unemployment rate of 4.2 percent.
The challenges brought on by an inadequate education aren't just
reserved for the unemployed; they extend to those with a job as well.
In 2009, workers without a high school diploma earned less than
$23,000, while workers with a bachelor's degree earned nearly three
times that amount. These statistics remind us of the challenges facing
workers who do not succeed academically. Without a doubt, education is
critical to the strength of America's workforce and economy.
That is why the current state of our nation's education system is
so troubling. Only 69 percent of students earn their high school
diploma. According to the Nation's Report Card, an eighth grade student
has only a 30 percent chance of being able to read at grade level.
Reading and math scores for teens on the verge of graduation remain
largely unchanged since 1973. Students who do graduate are often
unprepared to compete in the workforce. Employers continue to express
their concerns that new workers too often lack basic skills in reading,
writing, and math.
As we consider these disturbing trends, we can't ignore that over
the last 45 years the federal government has become increasingly
involved in the day to day operations of our schools.
We have all heard a teacher or parent describe how rules imposed by
Washington often stifle innovative solutions taking place in the
classroom or undermine the freedom to choose a school that best fits a
child's needs.
We can no longer accept the status quo that says Washington has all
the answers and more money will fix a broken education system. Since
1980, federal spending on education has increased by 425 percent yet
student achievement has failed to improve. Clearly, the current system
isn't working. It is time we stopped measuring our commitment to
education by the dollars we spend.
The good news is that the tide is turning. Dedicated reformers,
concerned citizens, and gifted filmmakers have sparked a debate that is
spreading across the country. Their efforts have awakened a desire for
a new approach to education in the country. State and local communities
are moving forward with innovative solutions to improve accountability,
parental involvement, results-based hiring, and school choice.
Washington should not stand in the way of these and other meaningful
reforms that improve the quality of education for our children.
That is why we are here today. Congress must understand the
challenges facing our education system, hear the concerns of state and
local leaders intimately involved with what goes on in the classroom,
and begin to chart a different course that ensures the innovation and
accountability being driven at the local level can succeed.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and will now yield to
our Senior Democratic Member, Mr. Miller, for his opening statement.
______
Mr. Miller. Thank you for yielding. Our former member of
this committee, our colleague, Jared Polis, from Colorado, has
asked to sit with the committee today because of his ongoing
interest in education, and I thank you for agreeing to have him
sit with the committee.
Today's hearing is our first education hearing in this new
Congress. And I believe it is a very important one. As we look
forward to reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act, it is critical that we continue to take a look at where we
are nationally and locally in terms of both progress we have
made and the problems that continue to persist.
The economic situation we are facing in this country also
calls for us to take stock of what is going on in the
classrooms across the nation. The children sitting in our
classrooms today are the workforce of tomorrow. And we have
both good and bad news to report about our public education
system.
The good news is that our focus and support of education
over the last 10 years has led to real and significant
improvements for children with academic achievement. We have
seen increases in both reading and math scores. We have seen
achievement gaps narrow in our elementary and middle grades
between African-American and White students and between high
and low-poverty communities.
But the gaps still exists. And in some rural and urban
communities, the achievement gap is so persistent that many of
our children are in grave jeopardy, which many consider a
threat to our nation and to our economy. This is a threat to
our competitiveness and even our security.
Of the 30 industrialized countries, the U.S. ranks 12th in
reading literacy, 17th in science and 25th in math. The
difference between the countries at the top of the
international rankings and our country is that the countries at
the top have made it a national goal to develop the best
education system in the world.
And I want to point out in those countries they have
focused on all students. While our top 10 percent of students
remain competitive with their peers internationally, the U.S.
falls flat when it comes to educating poor and minority
students. It is clear that our economy will not be strong if
the education of all students is not a clear priority.
Nearly 600,000 students dropped out from the class of 2008,
according to the Alliance for Excellent Education. If only half
of these students had graduated together, they would earn some
$4.1 billion in additional wages in the course of an average
year. And their incomes would help grow local revenues by $535
million in an average year.
The fate of our national economy rests with the combined
strength of the economies of local communities. These local
communities rely on an educated and well-trained workforce.
More needs to change so that our students will become the next
engineers, entrepreneurs and teachers.
A recent study of the workforce shows that the demand for
workers with college education will outpace supply by some
300,000 individuals per year. By 2018, our colleges and
universities will have produced 3 million fewer graduates than
demanded by the workforce. The problems in our education system
are even keeping young men and women from defending our nation.
They don't have the reading, math and science problem-solving
abilities to take and pass the military enlisted exam.
So the question really is where do we go from here. This
country is too great and has too much potential to be a second-
tier in education internationally. What our students need to
succeed isn't a mystery.
We took important steps forward with No Child Left Behind,
calling on communities to be transparent about the achievement
of all children. But much of that act is now outdated. And now
we need to take the next steps to give greater flexibility at
the local level in exchange for setting high goals for all
children and less prescription at the federal level.
We need an accountability system that works and refuses to
let any student--any student--slip through the cracks. We must
set high goals and achievement for all students, that includes,
poor and minority students--we know this list well--English
learners and students with special needs, all students in the
United States, and provide them with challenging and rigorous
learning environments tied to college and career-ready
standards.
They need creative, effective teachers to hold them to high
goals and standards and that can adjust their teaching
strategies as needed during the day, during the school year.
Ten years after No Child Left Behind was enacted, the law is in
need of major update. I am confident that we will be able to
get this done this year. We have really no other choice but to
do it.
And I look forward to hearing from our witnesses of what we
can do to improve our education system and make it easier for
our local jurisdictions to carry out the intent of the Congress
and the hopes of this nation. Thank you very much.
And I want to thank the witnesses for joining us.
[The statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, Senior Democratic Member,
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today's hearing is our first education hearing in this new Congress
and an important one. As we look forward to reauthorizing the
elementary and secondary education act, it is critical that
We continue to take a look at where we are nationally and locally
in terms of both the progress we have made and the problems that
continue to persist.
The economic situation we are facing in this country also calls for
us to take stock of what is going on in classrooms across the nation.
The children sitting in these classrooms today are our workforce of
tomorrow.
We have both good and bad news to report about our public education
system.
The good news is that our focus and support of education over the
last ten years has lead to real and significant improvements for
children academic achievement.
We have seen increases in both reading and math scores. We've seen
achievement gaps narrow in our elementary and middle grades between
African American and white students and between high and low poverty
communities.
But the gaps still exist and in some rural and urban communities
the achievement gap is so persistent that many of our children are in
grave jeopardy--which many consider to be a threat to our nation.
It's a threat to our competitiveness, our economy and even our
security.
Of 34 industrialized countries, the U.S. ranks 12th in reading
literacy, 17th in science and 25th in math.
The difference between the countries at the top of the
international rankings and our country is that the countries at the top
have made it a national goal to develop the best education system in
the world.
And I want to point out that those countries have focused on all
students.
While our top 10 percent of students remain competitive with their
peers internationally, the US falls flat when it comes to educating our
poor and minority students.
It is clear that that our economy will not be strong if the
education of ALL students is not a clear priority.
Nearly 600,000 students dropped out from the Class of 2008,
according to the Alliance for Excellent Education,
If only half of these students had graduated, together they would
earn $4.1 billion in additional wages in the course of average year.
And their incomes would help grow local revenues by over $535
million in an average year.
The fate of our national economy rests on the combined strength of
economies in local communities.
These local economies rely on an educated and well trained
workforce.
More needs to change so that our students will become the next
great engineers, entrepreneurs and teachers.
A recent study on the workforce shows that demand for workers with
college educations will outpace supply by 300,000 per year.
By 2018, our colleges and universities will have produced 3 million
fewer graduates than demanded by the workforce.
The problems in our education system are even keeping young men and
women from defending our nation.
They don't have the reading, math, science and problem solving
abilities to take and pass the military enlisted exam.
So the question really is where do we go from here?
This country is too great to be second tier in education.
What our students need to succeed isn't a mystery.
We took important steps forward with No Child Left Behind calling
on communities to be transparent about the achievement of all children.
And now we need to take the next steps: give greater flexibility at
the local level in exchange for setting high goals for all children and
less prescription at the federal level.
We need an accountability system that works and refuses to let any
student slip through the cracks.
We must set high goals for all students and provide them with a
challenging and rigorous learning environment tied to college and
career ready standards.
They need creative, effective teachers who hold them to high goals
and standards and can adjust their teaching strategies when needed.
10 years after No Child Left Behind was enacted the law is need of
a major update.
I am confident we will be able to get this done this year. We have
no other choice.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about what we can do
to improve our education system.
Thank you for joining us.
I yield back.
______
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman. This is probably one
of those occasions where we could just exchange each other's
speeches. It doesn't happen often. It doesn't happen often and
may not happen down the road. But we are united. [Laughter.]
Mr. Miller. The negativity is so great. [Laughter.]
Chairman Kline. All right. Pursuant to committee rule 7C,
all committee members will be permitted to submit written
statements to be included in the permanent hearing record. And
without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 14
days to allow such statements and other extraneous material
referenced during the hearing to be submitted in the official
hearing record.
It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished panel
of witnesses. And I will go through and introduce each of you
and all of you together before we start into the testimony.
Dr. Tony Bennett serves as the Indiana superintendent of
public instruction, where he has pushed for drastic education
reform. Prior to his election as superintendent, Dr. Bennett
served as principal of Scottsburg Senior High School and spent
nine years in the classroom as a science teacher. He also is
one of the founders of the Chiefs for Change, a group of
education leaders formed to promote school choice and
performance-driven evaluations for teachers and principals.
Ms. Lisa Graham Keegan is the founder of the Education
Breakthrough Network, a coalition of organizations and
individuals dedicated to promoting school choice. Over the
years, she has advocated for conservative approaches to
education reform, including am emphasis on standardized testing
and school choice initiatives such as school vouchers, tuition
tax credits, charter schools and open enrollment policies.
Mr. Andrew J. Coulson is the director of CATO Center for
Educational Reform. Previously, he was a senior fellow in
education policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Mr.
Coulson also serves on the adviser council of the E.G. West
Center for Market Solutions in Education at the University of
New Castle, United Kingdom and has written for several academic
journals, including the Journal of Research in the Teaching of
English, the Journal of School Choice and the Education Policy
Analysis Archives and for newspapers such as the Wall Street
Journal and the Washington Post.
Mr. Ted Mitchell is the president and CEO of NewSchools
Venture Fund, a non-profit philanthropic organization that
raises private funds from education entrepreneurs to fund
innovative K-12 projects around the country. From 2008 to 2010,
he also served as president of the California State Board of
Education. Prior to taking the helm at NewSchools in 2005, Mr.
Mitchell served as president of Occidental College in Los
Angeles, as deputy to the president at Stanford University, as
vice chancellor and dean of the School of Education and
Information Studies at the University of California, Los
Angeles and as professor and chair of the Department of
Education at Dartmouth College.
Welcome to all of you. And it is a very distinguished
panel. We are very happy to have all of you here.
Just very briefly, a reminder--I know this was explained,
but for the benefit of all, including my colleagues, who
sometimes turn colorblind on me, you have some little boxes in
front of you that will have lights. When you start your
testimony, a green light will come on. And that will be on for
4 minutes.
It will turn yellow for a minute to give you an indication
that it is time to start wrapping up your testimony. And then
it will turn red. And that will indicate that the 5 minutes are
up.
As I promised each of you, I don't intend to gavel anybody
down in the middle of a sentence or thought. But, please, take
that red light as the indication that it is time to wrap that
up. And I will just take this opportunity to remind my
colleagues that we also will have the 5-minute rule. We will
have 5 minutes in which to ask our questions and have them
answered. There is some skepticism among my----
Mr. Miller. It went pretty well yesterday.
Chairman Kline. Well, it went pretty well yesterday, not
exactly perfect.
So we will start, and we will go right down the line.
And, Dr. Bennett, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF TONY BENNETT, INDIANA SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTION, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Mr. Bennett. Thank you. Thanks for having me today,
Chairman Kline. It is an honor to be here. And it is an honor
to partake in a discussion that, I think, is the most important
discussion we have going on in our nation. And that is the
future of our nation through the education of our children.
When I took office in 2009, we immediately set out a very
aggressive plan in Indiana that said the academic achievement
and career preparation of all Indiana students would be the
best in the United States and on par with the most competitive
countries around the world. And we then had to do something a
little different. We had to evaluate the landscape.
And I think I have a slide that is for your reference that
is here that I am going to just very--give a quick side
comment. Our staff kind of tripped me up. I refer to this
usually as Indiana's education mess. They didn't like the name,
so they put Indiana's education challenges. They thought you
would like it better.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
But this gives all of you an idea of what we were looking
at, what we have been looking at in Indiana. And I think there
are some very stark realities here. I think when you evaluate
that picture, you are going to see academic achievement issues.
You are going to see cultural issues. You are going to see
structural issues that we believe we have to address.
Now, the reason I bring that to you is when you talk about
a system that has academic achievement problems, cultural
problems and structural problems, something should come to
mind. We have to have comprehensive reform.
In education for many years, we have tried to do this thing
we called reform by doing one thing at a time. And it hasn't
worked. It has given us minimal results. So we believe to
approach this issue and to approach the complexity of these
issues, we must do this with comprehensive education reform in
Indiana.
And so, if we can go to the next slide, very quickly, you
will see that in Indiana we will create and promote a state-
wide culture of academic excellence in which--and we have this
actually on a scoreboard in the state house atrium and in a
scoreboard in my office with our term, ``winding down in days,
hours, minutes and seconds,'' that says 90 percent of our
students will pass both the English language arts and math
portions of the state's examinations. Twenty-five percent of
our graduates will graduate with advanced placement
international baccalaureate or dual credit, and 90 percent of
our students will graduate with a meaningful high school
diploma.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
So we have that, again, on a scoreboard with all our
critical statistics leading to that that shows us the sense of
urgency with which we must address those issues you saw on the
first slide. So let's talk for a moment about what we have done
about comprehensive education reform.
First of all, Indiana today--it was announced yesterday--
leads the nation in access to advanced placement exams with
more minority students taking those exams than ever before. We
also reformed teacher licensing, making it easier for mid-
career changers to come into the field of education, giving
more flexibility to our teachers in terms of professional
development leading to relicensure.
We developed a growth model with the help of Colorado,
where we are able to show how students grow year-over-year. And
we have a transparent way of showing school performance growth.
And in the future, parents will be able to see the growth of
the teachers their children will have. And today, parents will
be able to see the growth of their own children year-over-year.
And finally, sadly, in 2011, at the end of this school
year, the state will be prepared to potentially intervene with
20 of Indiana's chronically under-performing schools. We have
more than 24,000 Hoosier students in these schools. We have a
very aggressive reform agenda where we will put an emphasis on
teacher quality.
We will give schools flexibility and hold them very
accountable. I believe accountability without flexibility is
punishment. And we have to give folks flexibility to meet high
standards and be competitive.
And finally, we want to give all children options, options
of charter schools, non-government schools to pursue
educational opportunities that meet their needs. We also want
to cut out the red tape. We have a red tape waiver in our
legislation right now to remove red tape. And we would like to
see the federal government do something similar. Set some
guidelines. Set high expectations. Give us the resources. And
hold us accountable by taking those resources away if we don't
hit the target.
And finally, let's talk about funding because this is a
very important piece. There is another slide here.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Kline, you mentioned the federal investment in
education. This is Indiana state investment. And as you can
see, our ISTEP, which is our state standardized testing, is
flat over the last 10 years. I think there is a very important
2 points here. In 2009, you actually see the line dip when the
line for funding goes up. We cut our budget by $300 million in
2010, and the red line went up.
What that tells us is in Indiana, we are answering the
question, not how you get more money to education, but how you
get more education for your money. And we are doing that by
starting a discussion where we marry fiscal policy and
education policy. Far too frequently, we have discussions about
how to fund education without having discussions about what we
expect from education.
So we believe that, again, we would love to see a situation
where the federal government allows us to have a set of
guidelines, gives us incredible flexibility, puts high
expectations on us and holds us very accountable if we don't
meet those expectations. Thank you very much.
[The statement of Mr. Bennett follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tony Bennett, Ph.D.,
Indiana Superintendent of Public Instruction
When I took office as Indiana's elected Superintendent of Public
Instruction in 2009, I set out to provide all Hoosier students a world-
class education that would prepare them for the demands of our
competitive, global economy. I realized quickly our students had a lot
to overcome. The state of education in our state, as in many others, is
challenged. In Indiana, more than 15,000 third graders can't pass the
English/Language Arts portion of our state assessment. One in four
students fails to graduate high school with a meaningful high school
diploma, and of those who do graduate, 25 percent require college
remediation. Too few of our students take the kind of rigorous high-
school coursework needed to compete for seats in our top universities;
only 12 percent are passing Advanced Placement exams.
My first step upon taking office was to set clear, measureable and
high expectations for student achievement. By 2013, 90 percent of
Indiana students will pass both the English/Language Arts and Math
portions of our state's assessment--the ISTEP+. Twenty-five percent of
all high school graduates will receive a score of 3, 4 or 5 on at least
one Advanced Placement exam, a 4 or higher on an International
Baccalaureate exam, or receive the equivalent of three semester hours
of college credit during their high school years. Finally, 90 percent
of Indiana students will graduate from high school with a meaningful
diploma. Two scoreboards, one in my office and one on display for
Statehouse visitors, track our progress toward attaining these
aggressive goals.
We are forging a bold path to tackle Indiana's education challenges
head-on and to achieve our 90-25-90 goals for Indiana students. We
start with the principle that every decision we make must be focused on
doing what is best for our school children, and that has meant engaging
in difficult conversations about the long-standing practices that for
too long have favored adults over children. Second, we realize we
didn't find ourselves in this situation overnight; there was no one
policy or event responsible for degrading our system of schools. It
came as a result of years of complacency, inaction on various complex
difficulties, and fear of change. Therefore, our plan to address it
must be comprehensive. No single solution will give all students the
high-quality education they deserve. Our approach is to attack all of
the problems simultaneously from multiple angles. We know that's what
it will take to transform our current system into one that expects and
supports excellence for all students.
Our education reform agenda, which is currently before our General
Assembly, reflects this comprehensive approach--and it will require an
all-hands-on-deck commitment to succeed. We are confident our
legislators will take advantage of this historic opportunity to answer
the call to help Indiana's students, and we are encouraged by the
bipartisan support we are receiving from state and national leaders.
The agenda is bolstered by our successful efforts to improve
Indiana's schools over the past two years. We have made tremendous
gains despite the nation's trying economic landscape. Indiana leads the
nation in access to advanced placement exams with more minority
students than ever before taking the exams. We have seen more students
graduate from high school and pass our state assessments. We have also
revamped the way teachers gain and renew their licenses in Indiana to
better reflect student needs, ensure content-area expertise and allow
highly-qualified career changers more pathways to teach in our highest
need communities.
We have rolled out Indiana's Growth Model, and it is the
centerpiece of many of our reform efforts. It allows us, for the first
time, to measure how much students learn over the course of a school
year--no matter their achievement level, income, race or ZIP code.
Perhaps most important, it gives us a more accurate view of which
teachers are driving the biggest academic gains in the classroom.
Often, the most remarkable success stories are happening in our most
disadvantaged communities. Teachers who were never recognized by a
system that looked only at test scores are standing out with Indiana's
Growth Model for moving kids 1.5 to 2.5 grade levels in a single school
year. While we understand this new tool won't solve all our problems,
it has been a game-changer in the way we measure academic success in
our state.
We are taking the first steps right now to intervene in our
chronically low-performing schools, where more than 24,000 Hoosier
students are doomed to educational environments that fail to provide
them even the most basic skills they will need to enter college or the
workforce. Currently, 20 schools could face state takeover at the
beginning of the 2011-12 school year.
Looking ahead, we believe this is the moment for Indiana to emerge
as a leader for other states to follow when it comes to innovative and
aggressive education initiatives that put student success first--and
our three-part ``Putting Students First'' agenda is the type of
comprehensive reform plan Indiana's students need.
The three pillars of Indiana's ``Putting Students First'' education
agenda are the following:
1. Indentify and reward great teachers and principals by giving
local leaders flexibility to promote excellence. Legislation before our
general assembly this session would require local corporations to be
centers of innovation that develop fair, multi-faceted, annual
evaluations for teachers and principals that will clearly differentiate
effectiveness and consider student performance and growth. Once in
place, these evaluations should be used to determine pay increases,
classroom placement and professional development requirements.
2. Enforce accountability but allow local flexibility to turn
around our persistently low-achieving schools. Our proposed legislation
creates a clear roadmap for turning around our lowest achieving schools
by outlining procedures for state intervention and giving school
operators at our worst schools the freedom to make the bold moves
necessary for swift, dramatic improvement. The legislation would also
create a ``Parent Trigger'' that would allow a majority of students'
parents in a school to petition for early state intervention in a
failing school.
3. Give all families a voice and high-quality educational options
for their children. Legislation is currently before our General
Assembly to enforce stricter accountability for charter schools, create
more quality charter authorizers, and create a needs-based opportunity
scholarship for families to take a percentage of state funding to
educate their children in participating non-government schools. The
legislation would also create a ``Parent Trigger'' that would allow a
majority of students' parents in a school to petition for conversion to
a charter school at any time.
What's more, Indiana students deserve an education system that
demands academic results and isn't focused on complying with outdated
and unnecessary laws and regulations. I believe part of the reason our
students are falling behind is a lack of appropriate leadership at the
state and federal level. We must strike a balance between expectations,
accountability, flexibility and support.
As a former teacher, principal and school superintendent, I am a
strong believer in local control. Indiana's school leaders are in a
better position to know what's best for the students in their
communities. They know which programs will work for the children they
serve. They understand the cultural and economic factors unique to
their districts, and they are in the best position to drive innovation.
My role as state superintendent is to set high expectations for student
performance and enforce strict accountability measures. In between,
particularly if we are successful this legislative session, our locals
will have full flexibility to act on behalf of their students' best
interests.
We will put guardrails in place to ensure quality and provide
support, and then, we will get out of the way and let them do their
jobs. I tell Indiana's superintendents to blame me for setting such
rigorous goals. I don't tell them how to reach those goals, but I am
happy to let them use me as a shield so they can do what they need to
do for their students. I would love to see the federal government to do
the same for states.
Part of this must involve some deregulation. In Indiana, we have
heard loud and clear from our superintendents too much red tape is in
their way. This session, we're doing something about it with
deregulation legislation. Earlier this week, Indiana's House Education
Committee debated this legislation that would allow a school or school
corporation to apply to our State Board of Education for a waiver of
one or more laws or regulations that stand in their way. Just a handful
of laws or rules would not be eligible for waiver. Applicants would be
required to demonstrate how the waiver would help improve student
learning.
As a department, we are also taking a close look at the red tape we
place on schools. For example, we recently reviewed the more than 120
data collections we ask of local school corporations to see whether the
data collected is focused on our top priority--student achievement--and
that the data we collect is actually put to good use. With those
parameters in mind, we have identified more than 30 collections that
can be suspended or consolidated with other collections, thereby
reducing the burden on local leaders. Now, we are looking to the
federal government to cut through unnecessary red tape, as well, and we
have started discussions with the U.S. Department of Education to find
ways to do just that.
The best way the federal government can drive improved student
performance is by setting high expectations, enforcing strict
accountability measures, and allowing states the flexibility to work on
behalf of their students. In an ideal world, the federal government
would simply say, ``Meet goals X, Y and Z. Here are some guidelines,
but ultimately, we don't care how you get there. Figuring out your path
to success is up to you because you know best what your students need.
If you do not meet the goals, you will not get federal dollars.'' This
is a new paradigm at the state and federal level, and it's one that
keeps the interests of students at heart.
Speaking of education dollars, that's another area where we need to
change our thinking. We must fundamentally change the conversation from
``How do we get more money for education?'' to ``How do we get more
education for our money?'' Decisions we make on education spending
cannot be made in a vacuum; they must be married with our decisions
about education policy. We absolutely must review every spending
decision through the lens of what will most benefit students in our
classrooms. In Indiana, we're moving in that direction.
For the first time in our state's history, school funding formula
legislation will begin its journey in our House Education Committee,
where it can be considered in relation to our education reform
legislation, before it moves to the Ways and Means Committee. It may be
a small step, but it sends a clear message that we need to think
critically about the way we currently pay for education in our state.
In tight economic circumstances, the time has never been better to have
these discussions. More money isn't the answer to our problems. Too
often, it's not a lack of funding or resources that keeps individuals,
states and nations from achieving their goals; it's a lack of courage.
And courage is exactly what Indiana is asking from its lawmakers
this legislative session. It's also what we ask of our leaders at the
federal level. We cannot afford to keep doing what we've been doing.
Indiana's education challenges aren't unique; our problems reflect a
crisis facing our entire country. Our nation's economic success and
maintained global position depend upon our ability to gain quickly
significant ground on the education front.
As a man who has made educating children his life's work, I know
from experience when you hold children to high expectations, they will
rise to the challenge. As a school leader in southern Indiana, I set
similar high expectations for my teachers and staff. And they never let
me down. The same is holding true now, as school corporations across
our state are innovating and driving incredible gains in student
achievement.
I pledge this to you: if you set the bar high for states, put
guardrails in place to ensure quality, provide support, enforce
accountability, give states the flexibility to achieve those goals, and
then get out of our way, we will not fail America's school children. We
will not fail to prepare our nation's future leaders. But you must act
now on behalf of all children. We cannot risk leaving another
generation of students ill-prepared to compete with their international
peers. It is a moral imperative for all of us to act on behalf of
students and leave adult comforts and concerns aside to do what is
right for them.
______
Chairman Kline. Thank you very much.
Ms. Keegan?
STATEMENT OF LISA GRAHAM KEEGAN, FOUNDER, EDUCATION
BREAKTHROUGH NETWORK
Ms. Keegan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. It is an
honor to be here. What I would like to do is talk a little bit
about the individuals who are actually creating the
transformation in education in the country.
The path or the challenge before us is enormous. And Mr.
Miller described it well. It has been a long time that we have
been focusing on it. And it can feel overwhelming until you
look very closely at a significant transformation that is
underway in the country, who is doing it, how they are doing
it. And I would suggest that following their lead is the best
course of action any of us can take at this point.
My organization, Education Breakthrough Network, was
actually made possible by the past 20 years. And it was made
necessary as well because there isn't one thing that is
happening. There is not just one thing.
We are moving in all sorts of directions. We are moving in
terms of school choices for public charter schools, online
learning. Technology is driving this in credible ways. We have
created tutoring programs, scholarship programs.
Homeschooling has burgeoned in these past 20 years, really
a phenomenal growth in the transformation of American
education. And I think it is really important to understand, as
you go about the business of updating a law that passed 10
years ago, how different the landscape is even in these past 10
years.
The transformation is marked not by politics, not by a
particular group of people. One of the things about
Breakthrough we like best is that, I think, within 30 seconds,
anybody in the country could see somebody they know and trust
on that page: Democrats, Republicans, African-Americans,
Latinos, White folks, everybody. It is quite a mix, American
education transformation.
What is common to it is a belief that we can and we should
have our students be leaders academically in the world, no
excuses, no apology, no other agenda. That has to get done. And
these folks have been about the business of making it happen.
The simplest description of what is happening is that
states are moving away from simple assignment of their kids
into schools. They are moving away from one school that is
going to serve all needs, one set of rules that are going to
govern all people in the school district and moving into
specialization, most particularly, allowing educators to take
back the leadership role that our nation started with, quite
frankly.
Over the past 20 years, we have lost in assignment, we have
lost the numbers to the point that now over a third of students
do not attend the school they are assigned to. In Arizona last
weekend, we had an article about a school district where 75
percent of parents are opting out of their assigned high school
district. I would say at that point, choice has gone
mainstream.
And it has gone mainstream, not just for students, but for
teachers, which is as it should be. When we started public
education, we relied on the teacher, the teacher to start the
school, manage the school, run the school. The teacher has
never been anything but the most important factor in any
school. That has never changed.
What has changed is how effective we allowed that teacher
to be. All sorts of illogical constraints on personnel, on what
a teacher can do, when she can do it, or he can do it--excuse
me, gentlemen--what they can do, with whom, hiring who, how
they associate with each other. We assign teachers into
schools. We don't let them choose their schools or their
specialty.
In 2011, in an age when specialty is everything, that seems
illogical to me any more. And it seems illogical to the
thousands of educators who are bringing innovation to American
education. Teachers are fighting their way back to the front of
this exercise.
All over the country are organizations: The New Teacher
Project, New Leaders for New Schools, Teach for America, The
American Association of Educators, the American Board for
Certifying Teacher Excellence. These are teacher-led
organizations for teachers, bringing teachers back into
leadership. And it has been critically important.
Every state now is creating a way for teachers to bring
their skills directly into the education market, for teachers
to bring their schools to the students that they serve. It is a
fundamental difference.
The one thing I think is very important to talk about is,
as you go about your business, it is always refreshing to hear
that you hesitate to get in the way of local control.
Unfortunately, where education is concerned, local lost out to
control a long time ago.
Local control looks like national organizations whose power
far outweighs individual school board members, who are often
the power of the interests of the local communities they are
supposed to serve. So it is one thing to say we want this to be
local. It is another not to recognize that local officials are
not always free to do what they think is the right thing.
The innovation that has happened is that teachers who have
started schools, who have brought new technologies, who have
seen the promise of technology or of these new pathways are
what is local any more. And we need to make sure we can follow
them. We asked them what is it that would help you do more of
what you are doing. We take their advice and try to get out of
their way.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Ms. Keegan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lisa Graham Keegan, Founder,
Education Breakthrough Network
Mr. Chairman and Members, thank you very much for the opportunity
to speak with you today. It is an honor.
I am well aware that this committee needs no introduction to the
desperate state of affairs in American education. When I had the
privilege a few years ago to offer insights for a McKinsey report on
our achievement gaps, I was struck by their observation that the
economic cost of under educating our youth was best represented as a
permanent two trillion dollar recession.
And that analysis obviously offers only an economic barometer for a
staggering loss of human potential. The enormity of our challenge can
feel paralyzing, until we look very closely at the transformation
already underway.
The reality is that genuine shifts in attitude, policy and practice
began twenty years ago, and are dramatically reshaping American
education. The changes are being driven by a vast network of formally
and informally connected education leaders; hugely talented,
intelligent, creative and relentless. They are using every possible
avenue available to them * * * innovative practice, new laws, new
technologies, and disciplined recruitment * * * in order to overcome a
frankly calcified and outdated system.
This is not about one narrow policy, or a single set of political
ideologies. This transformation is marked by a basic belief: our
students can and should be leaders in academic attainment. No
equivocation, no apology, no excuses.
The simplest description of what is going on around the country is
that every state is moving away from the traditional system of one
school assignment and one set of policies that govern practice for
everyone in a school district. While states have not yet created
wholesale revisions to assigned public education, they have allowed and
encouraged these moves away from it. The key to understanding education
in America today is to understand we are already deep in the midst of
this desperately needed transformation.
For example, the shift from school assignment to parent choice is
fairly radical. Nationwide, nearly one third of students no longer
attend their ``assigned'' school. Just this week-end, Arizona's largest
newspaper highlighted a school district in Phoenix where 75 % of
students now opt out of their assigned school into another option.
Instead of their assigned school, parents are choosing another district
school out of boundary, a public charter school, a private school, an
online school, or simply to home school.
School choice has gone mainstream. As has teacher choice. This
entire decades long transformation has been led by teachers and
educators of every stripe. Finally. Again.
When our nation first envisioned a system of public schools, the
quality of the system lay in the hands of the school teacher. He or she
was hired to create the school, lead the school, and manage the school.
The effectiveness of the teacher leader has always been the most
important determinant of success in any school.
Over time, however, as systems began to centralize and hundred page
contracts took the place of leadership, the role of the teacher has not
become less important, but made less effective by illogical
constraints. And it has been teachers who fought their way back to the
head of this transformation.
Nearly every state has now created a way for teachers to create and
offer their schools to students. We now have ``franchises'' of schools
based on a particular learning style or philosophy. Some are private,
some are public charter schools, some are district schools. Hundreds of
thousands of students and teachers are benefiting the distribution of
these successful school models, be they groups like the KIPP schools,
Uncommon Schools, or the Noble Network of schools in Chicago, or
hundreds of other teacher-led schools across the country.
The schools are marked by a specialization in instructional
practice, or perhaps a focus on subject areas such as the arts or
science and technology. These specialized schools mirror practices
begun in magnet schools, and many of the best schools nationally are
intra-district specialized schools. They are led by master teachers who
want to lead, and who have the freedom to select their colleagues * * *
who also choose them.
States are also welcoming new learning technologies and online
schools, with fully half the states now offering full time on-line
schooling. And online instruction has in turn led to the creation of
``hybrid'' schools, where technology and tradition blend to create some
of the fastest pace growth in achievement we have seen to date. Again,
those models were created by teachers who either created or immediately
understood the potential of new learning technologies.
Most importantly, this evolution was not borne of an imposed
structure. This movement grew, and continues to grow, from the talent,
ingenuity, and perseverance of American educators. The biggest shift we
see is that educators themselves have created pathways that allow them
to serve students directly.
The energy in this movement gives its students and the nation so
much more than simple achievement gains. The energy feeds on a belief
in excellence, in potential, in the power of being able to contribute
to your community. The education revolution is immediately identifiable
not by a type of school or governance, but by its belief in the
students it serves. And that makes all the difference. Where they are
succeeding, we must find every way possible to help.
And this is a critical moment for our educational transformation.
What all of us do next will either advance or hinder acceleration in
achievement. And while it is always refreshing to listen to national
leaders espouse affinity for locally controlled solutions versus top-
down mandates, caution is in order. Where education is concerned, the
most successful local action has had to develop outside the traditional
confines of ``local control''.
Because unfortunately, ``local'' lost out long ago in school
districts, and ``control'' took over. School district control is
dominated by the interests of national organizations whose power dwarfs
that of their individual members or the communities they are meant to
serve. And that has to be taken seriously. In a world where rapid
improvement must be the imperative, the question is how best to break
through illogical yet calcified structures. Or more specifically, how
to allow those who are willing * * * to break through.
Current school district regulations that prevent individualized
personnel arrangements, prevent a school leader from walking in to
observe a classroom, prohibit the use of student achievement data when
assessing teacher performance, or prevent dismissal of clearly
incapable teachers, are all still hallmarks of ``local control''.
And the organizations who support those regulations do not sit
silent when their colleagues choose to opt out and create something
more powerful for students. It has been a battle, and the ``on the
ground ``realities have shifted. Ironically, true local control has
moved to schools of choice, and true teacher leadership and potential
exists outside the teacher contracts originally intended to empower
their work.
Hopefully what happens now at every level, is that we focus on
clearing the way for those who seek to excel. Sometimes it takes
nothing more than aligning terms. About 15 years ago, the Congress took
decisive action in support of state initiatives to proliferate public
charter schools by defining them in federal law as local education
agencies. That simple action not only put the schools and their
students on equal footing for federal education grants, it enabled a
fledgling movement to withstand the opposition of national
organizations.
As the transformation in schooling occurs nationwide, there will be
many such opportunities for support. These initiatives are not top-
down, they are entrepreneurial in nearly every sense. But they fight
traditional regulation in ways we often don't recognize until they
explain it to us. There is potential for a serious and effective
partnership to accelerate excellence here, albeit one that walks a fine
balance.
Where schools and innovative practices are proving successful, and
where parents are seeking them in numbers that far outweigh available
space, there is no time to waste. It's a great place to start. Let's
start with the known cures, and allow them to flourish. We have to ask
these leaders what it will take, and try to make sure they get it.
Thank you.
______
Chairman Kline. Thank you very much.
Mr. Coulson, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF ANDREW COULSON, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR EDUCATIONAL
FREEDOM, CATO INSTITUTE
Mr. Coulson. Chairman Kline, members of the committee,
thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you
today.
For over half a century, a succession of Congresses and
presidents has sought to do 2 things for American elementary
and secondary education: raise overall achievement and narrow
the gaps by income and by minority status. Roughly $2 trillion
have been spent at the federal level since 1965 in pursuing
these ends. In the next few minutes, I will summarize the
results.
Congress' first effort to raise overall achievement was the
National Defense Education Act of 1958, which focused on
mathematics and science, as it was a response to the Soviet
launch of the satellite Sputnik. As you can see on figure 1,
science scores for this period we don't have data for. But math
scores declined between 1955 and 1960. And that decline
accelerated after the passage of the National Defense Education
Act.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
There is a beginning of an uptrend after 1966, which looks
promising. But sadly, that uptrend was evanescent. It vanished
in the coming years, as we can see in figure 2, which charts
mathematics, science and reading scores from the earliest
national trend data we have available from the National
Assessment of Education Progress, along with the change, the
percent change, in real federal spending per pupil. And that is
adjusted for inflation.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Now, obviously, looking at that chart, it is pretty
disappointing. Is there a possibility that state and local
spending were going down at the same time that federal spending
was going up? Maybe that offset the increased federal
investment. To find out, I provided figure 3, which charts
total spending--the total cost, actually, of a K-12 public
education in real dollars, how it is changed over time.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
As you can see, total spending, much like federal spending,
has increased dramatically over the course of this period.
Reading and science--sorry, reading and mathematics scores are
flat over that 40-year period for students at the end of high
school. In science, scores have declined slightly.
Science is that little purple line at the bottom. It trails
up in 1999. I don't know if it was because bad news is no news.
But we stopped testing in that period of science scores at the
time. There is some other data from a different series of
results that also shows--it shows a decline in science from
1995 to 2006.
So what about the other federal goal in education at the
elementary and secondary level, compensatory education, closing
the gaps? We don't have data for the achievement of kids from
different economic backgrounds. But we do have data on the
relative performance of high school--the children of high
school dropouts and the children of college graduates, which is
a pretty good proxy for income.
Those gaps at the end of high school between the kids of
dropouts and the kids of college graduates have not changed in
40 years. I think there is a 1 percent uptick in one of the 3
subjects. And the other 2 are flat. It is really a
disappointing result.
The one area out of all these goals the federal government
has had that has shown some improvement is some of the
minority/White gaps. As you can see from figure 4, the gap in
reading, for instance, between Black and White students at the
end of high school has shrunk from its origin in 1969 or
thereabouts. 1971, I think, is the year. But the timing of the
gap closing does not support federal intervention as the likely
cause.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Virtually all of the shrinkage in the gap between Black and
White students in reading at the end of high school occurred in
a single eight-year span from 1980 to 1988. Since that time, it
has increased slightly. And this was a time, If you recall the
chart on figure 2, during which federal spending had
skyrocketed.
So to sum up, we seem to have gotten very little for the $2
trillion in federal education investments over the past half-
century. They do not appear to have achieved the goals they
were set out to achieve.
There is one notable exception to this very disappointing
overall pattern. And that is the tiny and recently-maligned
Washington, D.C. opportunity scholarships program. This
program, which allows low-income students in Washington, D.C.
to attend private schools and which costs about $7,000 per
pupil on average, produces equal or better academic results and
substantially better, statistically significantly better
graduation rates than are available in the D.C. public school.
And it does so at a quarter of the cost of D.C. public schools.
Extending and growing that program would be a fantastic
example for the nation. And it is something that Congress can
do, an affirmative thing Congress can do, which would have
tremendous benefits.
Now, D.C. is a special case. Congress grants special power
to Congress over the district. But it delegates to the federal
government no national education policy powers, reserving those
for the states and the people. Now, clearly, that
constitutional limit has not been observed for generations. But
in light of the evidence I have just presented, its wisdom is
inescapable.
Thank you. And I look forward to your questions very much.
[The statement of Mr. Coulson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Andrew J. Coulson, Director,
Center for Educational Freedom, Cato Institute
Chairman Kline, members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me
to speak with you today. My name is Andrew Coulson and I direct the
Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute, a nonprofit, non-
partisan public policy research organization. My comments are my own,
and do not represent any position of the Institute.
For over half a century, a succession of Congresses and presidents
has sought to do two things for American elementary and secondary
education: raise overall achievement, and narrow the gaps between high-
and low-income students as well as between minority and white students.
The federal government has spent roughly $2 trillion on these efforts
since 1965, adjusting for inflation.\1\
In the next few minutes I will summarize the results of these
efforts and their implications for federal education policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Calculated by the author from Table no. 373 of the 2009 edition
(latest available) of the Digest of Education Statistics, linearly
interpolating data gaps prior to 1985 and linearly extrapolating the
2010 value from the preceding ten years of data. The resulting figure
is: $2,070,963,000,000, in constant 2009 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress' first attempt to improve the quality of instruction in
the nation's schools was the National Defense Education Act of 1958, a
direct response to the Soviet launch of the satellite Sputnik. It was
intended to raise mathematics and science achievement. There are no
data on science achievement during this period to my knowledge, but we
do have nationally representative trend data for mathematics
performance at the end of high school, which I present in Figure 1.
As can be seen from the chart, math scores declined slightly during
the latter half of the 1950s, and this decline accelerated from 1960 to
1966, after the NDEA was passed. Scores had still not recovered to
their 1955 high point three decades later.
While the up-trend between 1966 and 1983 looks promising, it was
not sustained. Figure 2 charts the percent change in Math, Science, and
Reading scores from the 1970s to the present, along with the percent
change in real federal education spending per pupil.
Math and Reading scores at the end of high school are unchanged
over the past forty years, while Science scores suffered a slight
decline through the year 1999, the last time that test was
administered. Data from another nationally representative test series
show a continuing decline in 12th grade Science between 1996 and 2005,
the last year for which we have trend data.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ National Center for Education Statistics, The Nation's Report
Card: Science 2009, (NCES 2011--451), Institute of Education Sciences,
U.S. Department of Education, 2011. http://nationsreportcard.gov/
science--2009/ [The ``Nation's Report Card'' is a separate set of
nationally representative tests from the ``Long Term Trends'' set, but
both are part of the ``National Assessment of Educational Progress.'']
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presented with stagnant or declining performance in the face of a
meteoric rise in federal spending per pupil, it is reasonable to ask:
what happened to total spending? If state and local expenditures fell
to such an extent that they offset federal increases, that might
explain the profound disconnect revealed in Figure 2.
To answer that question, I present Figure 3, showing how the total
cost of an entire k-through-12 public school education has changed over
time.
We spent over $151,000 per student sending the graduating class of
2009 through public schools. That is nearly three times as much as we
spent on the graduating class of 1970, adjusting for inflation. Despite
that massive real spending increase, overall achievement has stagnated
or declined, depending on the subject.
But what of the federal government's other educational goal:
narrowing the achievement gaps by income and minority status?
Test score breakdowns by family income are not available, but we do
have something close: a breakdown by parents' level of education. This
allows us to compare the children of high school dropouts to those of
college graduates. In Reading and Science, the gap between these
students has not narrowed in 40 years. In Math it has narrowed by
barely one percent of the test score scale (see Figure 4). So, here
again, federal appropriations and the programs they have funded have
failed to achieve their goals.
That leaves us with one last federal policy goal to examine:
Shrinking the gaps between minority and white students. In science,
these gaps, too, are unchanged,\3\ while they have narrowed in Reading
and Mathematics. But a key question remains: were federal programs
responsible for this isolated gap narrowing?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Jay R. Campbell, Catherine M. Hombo, and John Mazzeo, NAEP 1999
Trends in Academic Progress:Three Decades of Student Performance
(Washington: U.S. Department of Education, 2000), p. 37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If so, the gap narrowing that did occur should track federal
legislation and spending: starting gradually and then accelerating
rapidly during the past two decades. To see if that is indeed the
pattern, Figure 4 charts changes in the black/white Reading gap (which
is one of the larger majority/minority gap reductions, with a fairly
typical time trend).
Comparing Figure 4 with the federal spending per pupil trend shown
in Figure 2, there seems to be little support for the hypothesis that
federal efforts have narrowed the black/white reading gap. The gap was
essentially unchanged for the first 15 years after the passage of the
ESEA and Head Start. Then, in the absence of any dramatic change in
federal policy or spending, the gap suddenly narrowed between 1980 and
1988. Since 1988, the gap has actually widened slightly, despite a
dramatic rise in federal spending over that period. The patterns for
both math and reading for both black and Hispanic students tell similar
stories.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Andrew J. Coulson, ``K-12 Education,'' chapter in David Boaz
(ed.), The Cato Handbook for Policymakers, 7th edition (Washington, DC:
Cato Institute, 2009). http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb111/hb111-
20.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To sum up, we have little to show for the $2 trillion in federal
education spending of the past half century. In the face of concerted
and unflagging efforts by Congress and the states, public schooling has
suffered a massive productivity collapse--it now costs three times as
much to provide essentially the same education as we provided in 1970.
Grim as that picture may seem, it fails to capture the full measure
of the problem. Because as productivity was falling relentlessly in
education, it was rising everywhere else. A pound of grocery store
coffee is not merely as affordable as it was in 1970--it hasn't just
held its ground--it is cheaper in real dollars. Indeed virtually every
product and service has gotten better, or more affordable, or both over
the past two generations.
Seen in that proper context, we would have to be disappointed with
our nation's lack of educational improvement even if federal spending
had not increased at all. The fact that outcomes have remained flat or
declined while spending skyrocketed is a disaster unparalleled in any
other field. The only thing it appears to have accomplished is to apply
the brakes to the nation's economic growth, by taxing trillions of
dollars out of the productive sector of the economy and spending it on
ineffective programs.
But amidst this bleak overall record, there is one federal
education program that has been proven to both improve educational
outcomes and dramatically lower costs. That is the Washington, DC
Opportunity Scholarships Program. Research conducted by the Department
of Education finds that students attending private schools thanks to
this program have equal or better academic performance than their peers
in the local public schools, and have significantly higher graduation
rates. This, and very high levels of parental satisfaction, come at an
average per pupil cost of around $7,000. By contrast, per pupil
spending on k-12 public education in the nation's capital was roughly
$28,000 during the 2008-09 school year.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The figures in the range of $15,000 for DC per pupil spending
that are commonly reported in the press are several years out of date,
do not take into account falling DCPS enrollment in the face of rising
total spending in the years since they were published, and usually
exclude major expenditure categories such as capital spending. The
$28,000 figure is the author's own calculation from the published
FY2008-09 budget documents of the District of Columbia, and the
spreadsheet in which those calculations were conducted, including
source citations, is available here: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/wp-
content/uploads/Coulson-DC-Ed-Spending-FY2009-Budget.xls
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The OSP program is thus producing better results at a quarter the
cost.
DC, of course, is a special case. The federal government is not
empowered by the Constitution to create such a program on a national
level. Indeed the Constitution delegates to the federal government no
national education policy powers, reserving them, under the 10th
Amendment, to the states and the people. Clearly, this limit has not
been observed for generations, but its wisdom is by now inescapable. We
have decades of evidence of the inability of our national education
programs to fulfill their worthy intentions.
Nevertheless, Congress could contribute greatly to the spread of
educational excellence around the nation by preserving and growing the
Opportunity Scholarships Program as an example of what is possible and
by phasing out its vast array of ineffective programs. This would
ultimately allow for a permanent annual tax cut on the order of seventy
billion dollars, and would bolster interest in the many state level
private school choice programs that have also been improving outcomes
while lowering costs. Any move in this direction would be of lasting
value to American families and the American economy.
______
Chairman Kline. Thank you.
Mr. Mitchell, please?
STATEMENT OF TED MITCHELL, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NEWSCHOOLS
VENTURE FUND
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you, Chairman Kline. Thank you,
Chairman Kline and Congressman Miller, members of the
committee, fellow witnesses this morning.
I applaud the bipartisan spirit with which, I think, we are
undertaking this discussion today. And I know that I am very
honored to be a part of it.
I am here for the same reason that you all are. As Chairman
Kline and Mr. Miller so eloquently said and as my fellow
witnesses have testified, we know that we need to improve
outcomes for kids in America's schools. But the good news is
that the country is filled with entrepreneurs, innovators and
systems leaders with bold ideas that can change children's
lives. And the federal government matters in how many of these
ideas come to fruition.
I have seen this up close at the NewSchools Venture Fund.
As a non-profit venture philanthropy firm, we seek out social
entrepreneurs working to improve public education for low-
income kids. We help those entrepreneurs grow organizations
that achieve breakthrough results. And I have seen these same
truths in my recent role as president of the California Board
of Education.
Here is an example. Aspire Public Schools was founded a
decade ago on a college-for-certain philosophy, on attention to
data and smart management. Today that idea has turned into 30
public charter schools serving more than 10,000 largely poor
and minority students.
And last year, 100 percent of Aspire graduates were
accepted to college. And Aspire is today the highest performing
school system serving low-income kids in California.
Or take Teacher U, where it set out to transform teacher
preparation in New York by focusing on results in the
classroom. Last summer, Teacher U. graduated its first cohort
of teachers with something revolutionary: measurable evidence
that they had helped their students advance a full grade or
more in a year.
We need more Aspires and more Teacher Us. Yet reform
remains an unnatural act in our school systems, which have
their own Newtonian logic. To every good idea, there is well-
financed opposition. My colleagues in the field need your help
in making that fight fairer. That means playing a smart,
limited role that helps local leaders and local entrepreneurs
do things that are essential, but politically difficult.
Here are 3 examples of the unique role the federal
government can and should play. First, government can continue
to protect the unprotected by focusing on outcomes for low-
income, minority and special needs students. No Child Left
Behind was not a perfect law, but the transparency created by
requiring states to report student achievement by sub-group has
been a powerful driver of reform. Please stay steadfast in that
commitment.
Second, you can foster innovation through targeted
incentives that ensure we don't try to meet 21st century
challenges with 19th century tools and policies. And innovation
isn't just technology. It is new ideas that create better
results.
Innovators disrupt calcified systems. And they prove it is
possible through results, removing excuses and catalyzing
change.
And we know from experience that funding innovation works.
Among the 200 plus schools in our own portfolio, 91 percent of
its graduates enroll in college.
And as we have learned, targeted incentive funds drive
policy innovation disproportionate to their cost and can create
cover when reform is politically difficult at the local level.
Often, parents' and kids' interests don't prevail at the local
level. Incentives can help to combat systemic gridlock caused
by entrenched interest groups.
And finally, you can speed reform through your support of
states as they transition to the voluntary common standards
advanced by nearly 40 governors, which will establish a level
playing field for all players, states, districts, schools and
service providers, allowing the best innovations to scale
beyond state boundaries. Beyond these broad strokes, there are
a few examples of specific policies that will advance
innovation and help states and local communities, particularly
under-served communities dramatically raise outcomes for their
students.
First, please support and fund fully the charter schools
program to support the growth of high-quality charters and
support strong charter accountability for those that under-
perform. Second, please consider using Title II funds to drive
the growth of smart and innovative teacher training
organizations focused on results and to drive the deployment of
evaluation and pay systems for teachers that recognize
performance. Third, help states clear away policies such as
fixed student/teacher ratios and seat time requirements that
prevent the spread of effective technologies that are
revolutionizing the way students learn and teachers teach.
There is a smart, limited, vital role for the federal
government to play in education. I hope that you will embrace
it with enthusiasm and move to reauthorize the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act. Thanks again for the privilege of
speaking with you today.
[The statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
------
Chairman Kline. Thank you, all, for your testimony. We are
going to move into a period of questions and answers. In what
appears to be a futile effort on my part to set an example, I
am going to start the clock for my own questioning and stick to
that.
If I keep setting that example, is it going to work,
George? Maybe not.
Mr. Miller. I have always been a slow learner. [Laughter.]
Chairman Kline. Dr. Bennett, let me start with you. You are
doing some pretty tough things in Indiana, some amazing things.
I have a number of questions here, some, frankly, proposed by
the staff, some that I have been writing as we went through. So
I want to touch on a couple of things, if I could.
Once, you mentioned that you are trying to put in place
ways for people to make--I think you call it--mid-career
changes to teaching. Can you tell me how that is--what you are
doing and how that is working?
Mr. Bennett. What we have done, Chairman, is really, we
revamped our entire teacher licensing system under the--we
refer to it as Indiana professional standards board. The first
thing we did was say that we were going to emphasize content so
that chemistry teachers knew chemistry and history teachers
knew history.
But the other thing was to, if you will, provide more
flexibility within the teacher licensing system to allow,
maybe, a chemist from Eli Lilly to leave that position and find
a way into Indiana schools to affect the lives of children. So
it was really an opportunity for us to tap the talent in an
economy where people may be leaving their jobs to come in and
provide education to children with some different teacher
licensing standards.
Chairman Kline. So you have made it easier for that chemist
from Eli Lilly in your example, who has decided they are either
retiring from Eli Lilly, to continue the example, or they just
have developed an interest in teaching, to get licensed to
teach in Indiana?
Mr. Bennett. That is correct. And we have done that with
teachers, principals and superintendents.
Chairman Kline. Well, I have always--I have great interest
in that because I have always thought that we have missed the
bet in a lot of cases where you have somebody who loves math
and has spent their life in math and they would like to now
take that love of math and the skill that they have and teach
it and transfer it. And too often, we have made that extremely
difficult to do. So I am always excited when I hear that there
are efforts to allow that to happen much easier so that people
aren't discouraged.
I know in many examples when I retired from active duty in
the Marine Corps and I established my home in Minnesota, I
thought, ``Well, I might want to substitute for a while.'' It
seemed like a good thing to do. And I liked to teach. And so, I
offered up that I might be interested to do that.
When it was explained to me all the things I had to go
through in order to be a substitute, it was so discouraging
that I started farming instead. I don't know. But it shouldn't
be that way. It shouldn't be that way. So I was--I am excited
to hear about that.
I was also interested in what you are doing to empower
parents to perhaps have a parent trigger, which we have heard
some about. Can you talk about how that is working, that you
are giving parents more control over what is happening with
their schools?
Mr. Bennett. Well, in our recent charter school bill that
just passed our house, we have a parent trigger for 51 percent
of the parents to trigger and bring a plan forward to remove a
school from a school corporation and bring it in as a charter
school or take it to a charter school.
Yesterday we presented a trigger for parents as it pertains
to school accountability, which says if the school is in year 4
or 5, chronically under-performing, under the state standards,
D or F schools, the parents can then actually go to the state
board of education and ask for accelerated intervention by the
state, which gives the state an opportunity to step in and say,
the parents are not pleased with the education happening here,
and the state is going to intervene within the law--the state's
accountability law.
Chairman Kline. You have a growth model that you have put
in place, according to my notes here. It looks at student
achievement, and it allows teachers that are moving students
ahead one-and-a-half, 2 grades, that they be recognized and be
highlighted. Two things, quickly, because I am running out of
time--how do you think that is working? And then,
fundamentally, for our concerns here, what in No Child Left
Behind or in federal law is getting in your way?
Mr. Bennett. Well, first, the growth model is a game
changer for us. It truly is a game changer because we have had
educators ask for many years, especially in our under-
performing schools, let us show you that we are moving
students. You know, not all children walk into sixth grade
performing at sixth grade level. So let us show you that we are
doing that. And the growth model does that.
It also has been the catalyst for our teacher quality
legislation that we are rolling out, which enables us to
recognize and reward Indiana's great teachers, teachers who are
driving growth. And I want to say something about our teacher
quality bill. It is a locally-driven bill.
It is not the bill--we got into this thing when we did--
when we went through our race to the top and we chose not to
engage. What we learned was the state can't run all those
evaluation systems. So our teacher quality bill sets guidelines
and guardrails for local school corporations to become the
centers of innovation in terms of teacher evaluation and
teacher compensation based on multiple measures, one of which
should be student growth.
Chairman Kline. Okay, great. Thank you very much. I guess I
broke my own rule.
Mr. Miller?
Mr. Miller. Seemed like 5 minutes to me. It is so short.
[Laughter.]
Thank you very much.
And thank you to the panel.
Just to raise one point, I think when you look at student
performance and you look at money, you want to say that somehow
there should be some correlation there. I think that is wrong-
headed. But I would also make the point I don't know exactly
what was going on before because it was so well-hidden. But
after No Child Left Behind, millions of people were added to
the test pool that were left out before.
We know that on test day prior to No Child Left Behind--and
we know that school districts fought like crazy not to have
what is now the requirement that 95 percent of your students
participate in the test--those children were sent on field
trips. They were told to go to the doctor. They were sent to
the library, anywhere except in the testing room. Now they are
in the pool.
And so, I think what is more important is how we are doing
with younger students, how we are doing with eighth graders,
how we are doing with fourth graders and how that gap is being
improved. So I just want to say I don't accept that.
But more importantly, here, I think, is really for us as we
anticipate going forward with the reauthorization--Mr. Mitchell
and Dr. Bennett, you have both talked about something that I
think is going to be the most important part of this, is how we
balance the flexibility, recognizing that in these nine years,
local education's changed dramatically, dramatically from the
outset of the data we were trying to acquire in No Child Left
Behind in the accountability.
Flexibility and balancing that with the accountability we
must insist on--otherwise, once again, there will be creativity
of local districts to hide students and to hide their
performance. We have been whipping the top 10 percent of
students the entire history of this nation. But we owe an
obligation to the 100 percent of those students in that
district.
How do we balance that? Because when I tour big, complex
districts, those superintendents have to partner with a
significant number of other people, with the police department,
with parks and recreation, with health organizations to keep
that population up and running, if you will, so that they can
fully participate in the educational opportunity.
They have to partner with charters. They have to partner
with teacher organizations. They have to partner with teacher
development organizations, with social entrepreneurs. But they
are stuck with, kind of, money that, for a lot of reasons in
the past, we directed directly to a particular school site. Now
what we see are very transient students, for a whole host of
reasons.
They can be transient if for no other reason than the
Internet. But they can also be transient because their parents
work somewhere else and they have transportation and the
opportunity to go to a school in a different part of a
district. That is a big change when we were sending--when I
came on this committee--what we called radioactive dollars.
They either followed that student, or we ripped them away from
the district.
That doesn't work in this very mobile educational forums
that we want to be able to present and have students take
advantage of, sometime multiple times during a single day they
can move to a different platform or a different site. And I
just would like you both to--on my remaining 5 or 6 minutes
here--to comment on that balance of flexibility. [Laughter.]
Because I just keep encountering the superintendents that
are really becoming very creative about marrying existing
resources--I am just talking about existing resources--to
providing that better educational opportunity.
Mr. Bennett. Well, let me speak to that directly. First of
all, what we did in our state board was we started a very quick
and extensive deregulation. Indiana was the first state in the
country to define a laptop computer as a textbook. And I think
in doing so, we opened up a whole new world to, maybe, address
what may be our society's next achievement gap. And that is the
gap where students who have resources can learn to access
technology, and students who don't have resources cannot.
And so, we did that. We eliminated seat-time requirements.
We eliminated a lot of the structures that came to us that
superintendents brought to us and said, ``We need you to get
this out of our way.'' We also have reviewed over a hundred
data collections that the state requires. And we found at least
30 that have nothing to do with student achievement.
And the truth is we have to get rid of that stuff.
Mr. Miller. I am going to have to ask Mr. Mitchell, because
you have only got a minute left.
Mr. Mitchell. Totally agree. And I think that one of the
issues, certainly, that we face in California in California's
budget crisis was a problem that as dollars were shrinking, the
requirements on what specifically to spend those dollars were
staying firm. And so, we were finding schools and districts and
the state as a whole where categorical programs, siloed
programmatic spending were preventing the kind of flexible use
of funds that are required to do the right thing for kids.
And I think that, as I mentioned in my testimony, that
continuing to shine a spotlight on student achievement,
particularly those kids who have not been a part of the system
before, providing resources, but flexible resources, whether
that is federal resources or state resources to the local--or
local resources to the school, is the key to unlocking the
innovative, creative spirit of teachers in classrooms,
principals at schools and, outside of schools, municipalities
as well. And I think that flexibility in funding, high outcome
goals that are clear to all is a very, very powerful
combination.
Chairman Kline. Thank you.
Dr. Bucshon?
Mr. Bucshon. Well, I would just like to say first it is a
pleasure to have Dr. Bennett here from my home state of Indiana
and the rest of the panel. Thank you for your testimony.
I am going to direct my question first to Dr. Bennett
then--and whoever wants to comment. And I grew up in a small
town where not everybody valued education. I was at a very
small school. But my parents did. And so, when I came into--
when I started into the local school system, I already had in
my mind as a student that achievement in school was going to
give me opportunity. And that is why I am here today.
I continue to believe that we have a lot of students that
when they come into school, they don't have expectations of
themselves because of where they have grown up. Can we--is
there a way that we can do a better job, I guess, with our
society in general, to help people recognize the importance of
education so that when kids enter our school system and we are
doing all these things to teach them, they already have the
mindset that, look, if I don't get my education, this is where
I will be in life, if I do, this is what I may achieve?
So, Dr. Bennett?
Mr. Bennett. Well, I think, first, Dr. Bucshon, I think we
have to recognize first--and I--this pains me to say this. But
the one thing I know I can't control is the home that that
child comes from. And that is sad. I mean, I think we all wish
that every child came from a home that afforded that child with
a great opportunity.
But we have a school corporation on the East side of
Indianapolis, Warren Township Schools. Their superintendent
basically tells their staff, ``Every year, there will be no
excuses. These are the expectations. And our students will meet
those expectations.''
They use an incredible continuous improvement model. They
drive student growth. And then we have Charles Tindley
Accelerated School in Indianapolis that literally has painted
on the wall in the most disadvantaged community in
Indianapolis, ``Go to college, or die.''
We have to set those expectations from the top. And we have
to make sure that instruction is driven with those expectations
because we can overcome what happens in the house.
Ms. Keegan. If I could add also, there have been 3 very
powerful films out in the past year. The first was called,
``The Cartel,'' then, ``The Lottery,'' then, ``Waiting for
Superman.'' And it kind of puts it back on us. These families
are desperately trying to get their children into schools that
work for them. And I am afraid what we have done in urban
America and too many places, sometimes in very rural America,
is we have created generational lack of expectation. And it was
the schools' fault.
If you talk to Jeffrey Canada about this and what happened
in Harlem, he blames that on education. If you repeatedly do
not educate your family, then what you get is predictable. But
it is not true and I have never experienced in my opportunities
in spending time with leadership in urban communities who are
trying to work with families, I have never experienced families
that didn't want this for their kids.
I have certainly experienced the fact that doors were
slammed in their face. And I think we have to take that pretty
seriously.
Mr. Mitchell. I agree. And I think that where we sit, the
overwhelming demand from parents for high-quality schools is
the challenge to which we all need to respond. That said, I
think it is true that there are schools that have low
expectations. And there is no place in this debate for those
schools. There is no place in that debate for leaders with low
expectations for kids.
If you were to ask me what is the single defining
characteristic of all of the high-performing schools that we
support, it is a culture of high expectation. And, as Dr.
Bennett said, philosophy of no excuses. Kids come where they
come from. It is our responsibility to move them to places that
can address their dreams.
Mr. Coulson. I would just add very briefly that good
schools, truly good schools can and do have a positive impact
on students' and families' attitudes about learning and their
expectations for what is possible. I have seen it, and it is
truly amazing what is possible.
Mr. Bucshon. I give back the rest of my time. Thank you.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Kildee?
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mitchell, how can we modify the system that measures
school performance to broaden out our method of determining
progress? And how can we address the fact that a sub-group may
keep a school from achieving AYP without neglecting our
responsibilities to that sub-group?
Mr. Mitchell. Great question, sir. My sense--and we have
talked about it a couple of times already--is that the broad
adoption of growth models enables us to have a very different
discussion about progress and a very different discussion about
intervention. Growth model analysis holds schools and districts
and states to high bars, but also allows us to identify and
help provide support for addressing the needs of particular
sub-groups.
Below that, I think that assessment tools and
technologies--and I am not thinking about the end of the year
summative tests. But I am thinking about the formative tests
that are now coming along associated with everything from
formal textbooks to digital learning materials are helping
teachers in classrooms improve their practice, adjust what they
are doing with kids on a daily basis. And I believe that that
is going to revolutionize the way we approach this.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much.
Dr. Bennett, I come from nearby Michigan and was a teacher
there for 10 years in Michigan. How do you hold in your growth
model into the other measurements for AYP? How do you merge
them or meld them?
Mr. Bennett. Actually, we are taking that in a different
direction, sir. We are actually looking to remove AYP from our
state's accountability system. We just recently--or we are in
the rulemaking process to grade all Indiana schools A-F as
opposed to the fuzzy descriptors that we have.
And that A-F grade is based on first the achievement of the
students in the school then the growth of the students in the
school and finally, the growth of the lowest 25 percent of the
students in the school, because the growth of the lowest 25
percent is your achievement gap. And every school has an
achievement gap, from the most advantaged school corporation in
the state to the most disadvantaged school corporation in the
state.
And I believe that is a much more fair process because a
student only counts once. A disadvantaged student who is in the
lowest 25 percent counts once as opposed to counting in what
could be up to 21 different sub-groups against a school in a
pass/do not pass system.
Mr. Kildee. There are students who belong to more than sub-
group. When right now under the present system, you measure,
say, fourth graders at the end of the fourth grade. And next
year, you measure fourth graders, but they are different
people, so you actually measure no growth at all under that
system. Is that not the case?
Mr. Bennett. In our growth model, you are measuring the
children year-over-year. So you are measuring apples-to-apples
comparisons.
Mr. Kildee. Good. That is one of the efficiencies of what
we wrote. I was part of that a few years ago because these are
different children we are measuring.
Mr. Bennett. Right.
Mr. Kildee. But if you can show the growth in that child,
that would be a more valid measurement of how much progress has
been made because you are measuring different fourth graders
each year, rather than the same students in their growth.
Mr. Bennett. And you can actually get on--we have a Web
site called the learning connection. You can look at every
school corporation and every school in the state and see how
their students grow. And that is a very powerful tool for
parents. It is a very powerful tool for our educators. And,
frankly, again, we think it is going to be a game changer in
Indiana.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kline. Thank the gentleman.
Mr. Gowdy, you are recognized.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to,
hopefully, ask 4 questions. So I will try to be concise with my
questions in hopes with an expectation of an equally concise
answer.
Mr. Mitchell, I will start with you. I wrote this down.
Feds can provide cover for local authorities. Cover from whom?
Mr. Mitchell. I think Ms. Keegan and I are on the same page
on this. In too many local decisions, entrenched interests,
institutionalized interests----
Mr. Gowdy. Such as?
Mr. Mitchell [continuing]. gridlock the system. Well, I am
a great example. I think that I am currently a defendant in a
number of lawsuits that include everybody from the
Administrators Association to the California School Board's
Association to the Teachers Union to Cafeteria Workers. So I
think that there are substantial interests from across the
board. And there are some--plenty of responsibility to share.
Mr. Gowdy. Fair enough.
Ms. Keegan, I went to the worst school in South Carolina
last week. And I was curious to see what it looked like. And I
walked in, and there are kids in wheelchairs and helmets, and
there are teachers trying to teach them to avert their eyes to
express a preference. And yet, they are tested in geography
just like my children would be. And they fail. And the school
is given a failing grade.
And the property values go down. And the school gets a bad
reputation. What words of encouragement can I take from
Washington to the teachers who work so hard there that there is
going to be relief and change from Washington in how we grade
success in schools?
Ms. Keegan. Well, Mr. Chairman, sir, I would advise that we
find the school in the country that is doing the best job with
that group of kids or with that mixture of kids and find out
what is going on, first of all. First and foremost, you want to
make sure that we are doing everything we can for kids at every
need level.
But that we are not--whatever it is we do in terms of
assessing kids, we don't artificially penalize a school when it
is doing the best it can and getting a result. And as Dr.
Bennett and the panel has been talking about, growth allows you
to look at where you start and where you end up.
What we can't do is leave kids invisible. It is a very fine
line. If we don't test them, they are invisible, and then we
don't have to do anything with them.
Mr. Gowdy. But you would agree with me it is sheer lunacy
to test children who cannot avert their eyes to show a
preference on the geography of the regions of the state of
South Carolina?
Ms. Keegan. I am surprised, Mr. Chairman--Mr. Gowdy. I am
surprised that those students are included. There is an
exception at 1 percent for severe students. I am very surprised
that that student would be tested if, really, their only
communicative motility is aversion of eyes. I mean, I am a
speech pathologist when I had a real life. And I don't see that
that would--that should be the case. So maybe we just need to
talk to the school.
Mr. Gowdy. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Coulson, I heard parental control. I heard parental
choice. The one phrase I have not heard is parental
responsibility. And perhaps I am a minority of one, but I think
it is fundamentally my responsibility to produce educated
children to society. Am I wrong? And aside from prosecuting
educational neglect cases, which I have done for 16 years, what
can be done so we shift the paradigm from it being our
responsibility to produce educated children to parental
responsibility to produce educated children?
Mr. Coulson. Not only is parental responsibility paramount,
but it is affected by the structure of the school system. When
parents have no authority to control the nature of their
children's education, who teaches their child, what they are
taught, when they go to school, where they go to school,
parents are naturally disenfranchised. They have no power, so
they disconnect from the system.
You have many cases of young parents who had young children
starting out in elementary school who think that they have some
sort of input and they burn out within the first few years of
school when they realize that the system does not need to
respond to them. What changes that is when parents are in the
driver's seat. When parents, either with their own money or
through a scholarship, are paying for their own children's
education, it is absolutely unavoidable for the school to
respond to them and to heed their wishes because it is in the
financial and professional interest of the school to heed those
wishes.
When parents are empowered in that way, they become more
involved. It is like exercise. You know? When you have
responsibility--having responsibilities breeds responsibility.
So we need to increase the amount of responsibility parents
have in their children's education.
Mr. Gowdy. Mr. Chairman, I see the caution light. Thank
you.
Chairman Kline. You are to be commended. Thank you for
yielding back. It is probably my fine example.
Mr. Andrews, you are recognized.
Mr. Andrews. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, thank
you for calling this hearing, which I think is very instructive
in addressing very important problem. We appreciate that.
And thank you to the 4 witnesses. Really outstanding. I am
thinking this morning about a girl who is in seventh grade who
shows amazing potential in mathematics. And she might be able
to start to do high school-level work or even eventually
college-level work in mathematics. But she lives in a town that
couldn't afford to bring in a math teacher who could help her
do that, or she is in a class of 25 or 30 peers who couldn't
possibly keep up with that. So she is standing still.
And, Ms. Keegan, one of the ideas that you touched on--and
I know Dr. Bennett touched on--is the use of online learning as
a way to address the needs of that young woman.
I am familiar, Mr. Mitchell, of what Stanford University
has done with its EPGY program in this regard. You open up
these horizons for children in very exciting ways.
And I wanted, Ms. Keegan, in particular, if you could give
us some recommendations as to what you think we should do with
online learning options in the reauthorization of No Child Left
Behind.
Ms. Keegan. Well, I appreciate the question because there
are a number of places where we don't even realize that they
are going to run into a wall. So the number one thing I would
suggest is to keep a very open dialogue with organizations like
IMAKOL and others that represent online learning in America
because we have got 4 million kids going to school online.
Half the states right now offer full-time online learning
for their students, which is something you probably know. And I
think we are at 45 at least who are offering at least some
course work.
Mr. Andrews. May I ask you a specific question? And I agree
with those suggestions. As you know, under the present
iteration No Child Left Behind, if a school doesn't make what
we now call Adequate Yearly Progress, there is a menu of
options among which it must choose.
Ms. Keegan. Right.
Mr. Andrews. Do you think that we should include an online
learning alternative as one of those options that schools
should have to look at?
Ms. Keegan. I do. An interesting thing about the
recommendations is that parents can choose a different
governance system. And what is happening out there is that
governance is sort of blending. Online schools are sometimes
private, sometimes charter, so I think we need to be aware. You
don't want to accidentally not give people options. So I would
absolutely think that is a fabulous idea.
Mr. Andrews. Mr. Mitchell, would you give us some
recommendations in this area?
Mr. Mitchell. You bet. So I think a couple things--and I
want to applaud Indiana and several other states who have
cleared away their seat-time requirements and their fixed
student/teacher ratio requirements. I think the next block to
fall is, just as you suggest, competency-based credit to allow
students to move along at their own pace.
As we speak, there is a terrific experiment going on in--
near Stanford with Conn Academy, an online group that we help
support.
Mr. Andrews. Right.
Mr. Mitchell. And in a fifth grade class that has been
using Conn Academy only since the fall, the spread of kids is
enormous. And there are kids in that fifth grade class who are
doing algebra today.
Mr. Andrews. One of the problems, frankly, is cash flow to
support this. You know, some parents have the wherewithal to
make these resources available to their sons or daughters. Many
do not.
What would you think about the idea of freeing up Pell
dollars to be used by these kind of students for early college
courses, you know, that are offered by some? And what if they
are really talented--this young woman, by the time she is a
junior in high school, could do college-level math. What do you
think of the idea of letting her use part of the Pell grant
early so she could do such a course online?
Ms. Keegan. She is taking college coursework, I mean, I
don't want to speak for you, Ted, but I think we would probably
agree that what we are trying to do is do away with barriers
that are artificial. It is an artificial barrier to say you
have to be in high school for 4 years.
Mr. Andrews. One of the barriers----
Ms. Keegan. So the point at which----
Mr. Andrews [continuing]. I worry about that I have heard
from colleagues at Stanford is that they wanted a person to
teach an economics course who had run a hedge fund, a
successful one back when you used to have successful hedge
funds. And he was not eligible to teach the course in economics
because he was not a highly-qualified teacher under California
law. Might we suggest a way to fix that problem?
Ms. Keegan. That is up to Mr. Mitchell.
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you. So that is an enormous barrier.
And it is not only a barrier for people who are highly
qualified in their intellectual domain, but it is also a
barrier across states, across state lines because credentials
are not automatically transferable across state lines. And both
of those issues, I think, are ripe for this committee and this
Congress to take up.
I think that online learning is a powerful tool. Hybrid,
blended schools that combine----
Mr. Andrews. Dr. Bennett, I have less than a minute, but
you can use all of it.
Mr. Bennett. I----
Mr. Andrews. Every last second of it.
Mr. Bennett. My question would be more why are we talking
about highly qualified as opposed to highly effective. Okay?
Highly qualified means there are inputs, and you are judging
the professional by their inputs. And we do that in an
antiquated system that we have today where we say we pay
teachers on years of experiences and degrees held, and you get
these things by, you know, how many education courses you take
or what have you.
Let's put these decisions in the local hands. Let's have
data-driven evaluations that identify teachers as highly
effective because we know highly effective influence the lives
of children. Highly-effective teachers influence the lives of
children more than just simply highly-qualified teachers.
Mr. Andrews. Thank you.
I yield back the balance of my carefully conscripted 5
minutes.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Barletta, you are recognized.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Bennett, we touched on something here. As you know, no
factor under school control affects student achievement more
than the quality for the teachers in the classroom. Poor
teacher quality, especially in the early grades, can affect the
student's education for a lifetime.
Since you took office in January of 2009, you have proposed
to eliminate teacher tenure. Now, you talked about rewarding
teachers through the teacher quality bill. Can you please shed
light on this initiative and others like it that aim to place
quality teachers in the classroom?
Mr. Bennett. First, thank you for asking. This is part of
our putting students first education reform agenda. And it,
again, goes to this issue of teacher effectiveness in that our
new teachers coming into the system would have to have 3 out of
5 years effective or above evaluations to achieve what is
called professional status. Until that time, they are
probationary teachers.
And then if they get an ineffective evaluation, they go
back to probationary. So it is earned in, earned out. And a
second ineffective evaluation makes that teacher eligible for
dismissal by the local school corporation. And we also would
like to tie the teachers' professional development to those
ineffective evaluations.
So the principal says you were ineffective. We are going to
target professional development. And then we will also, in
essence, reward the teacher by saying you can use that
professional development to improve your ineffectiveness to
renew your license. So it becomes a situation where we are
targeting teacher effectiveness for the benefit of student
performance.
Mr. Barletta. My district is home to a multitude of higher
education institutions, community colleges, public and private
universities and for-profit schools. In your expert opinion,
what are the benefits of partnerships between the universities
and the K-12 school system? And how has the state of Indiana
embarked on such initiatives?
Mr. Bennett. Well, we have a number of initiatives going on
to promote higher ed attainment in high school. And I think
going back to the slide I showed where we want 25 percent of
our students graduating with advanced placement, international,
baccalaureate or dual credit. So we are really--we have a dual
credit advisory committee that our commissioner for higher
education, Teresa Lubbers, and I co-chair, where we are trying
to clear out pathways so that students can attain dual credit
in high school.
We have a high school in Northwest Indiana, Crown Point,
where the principal there is doing phenomenal work. And he has
done it by making the dual credit opportunities accessible by
price point. What we know is that students and parents will
engage in dual credit opportunities if they are affordable. And
he has made this available through a partnership with Indiana
University Northwest and Purdue Calumet by offering dual credit
opportunity to $25 a credit hour.
That is a very accessible amount. The other thing is to
make teachers accessible. You know, we have teachers in our
state that could teach dual credit courses. And many of our
teachers are not allowed to teach dual credit because of some
barrier the universities put up. But yet, that same teacher can
go to the university after-hours and teach adults.
Now, that doesn't make sense. So we need to remove those
barriers so that our students have access to the professionals
and have a cost-effective access to dual credit in high
schools. We are also offering a--proposing legislation to allow
students to leave high school after their eleventh grade and
use some of the tuition support to go to college early.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you.
Mr. Coulson, I don't have much time. But the literature is
mixed in regards to a direct correlation between education
spending and student academic achievement. However, I think we
can all agree that how the money is being spent is the most
important factor in this debate. What specific education
programs, besides the D.C. opportunity scholarship program,
which you touched on, do you think we should continue funding
at the federal level?
Mr. Coulson. I think I could just yield back my time by not
answering that question. I am not aware of any other federal
program that is proven to be both effective and efficient with
anywhere near the quality of research that supports the
opportunity scholarships program.
If I found that there was such a program, then I would be
very much in favor of a constitutional amendment to make it
possible to grow such a program. But indeed, I find that apart
from the district program, there is really nothing that the
federal government has done that has been proven to increase
achievement.
Mr. Barletta. Very interesting. Thank you.
Mr. Hunter [presiding]. Mr. Scott, you are recognized.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Coulson, could you provide the research that
documents what you just said? Because the findings I have heard
about the D.C. voucher program suggest that some schools are
good and some are bad and that on balance, they are no better
than the public schools. So could you provide the research?
Mr. Coulson. Yes, Congressman. The study I am referring to
is the most recent of the studies commissioned by the
Department of Education and completed by Dr. Wolff and his
colleagues. It finds that student academic achievement is as
good or better than that of students in other schools. The
difference is not statistically significant in academic
achievement. However, the difference in----
Mr. Scott. You said good or better? And assuming you could
say the same as good or worse.
Mr. Coulson. No, you couldn't, actually. The effect is
positive. It is just not large enough to be statistically
significant. And as for the effect on graduation rates, it is
both positive and statistically significant.
Mr. Scott. And does that count for selection bias?
Mr. Coulson. Actually, there is very little selection bias
in this kind of study because it is a randomized control trial.
It is like a medical experiment in which you randomly assign
students to the control group.
Mr. Scott. Well, if you could provide that research,
because we get a lot of researchers come up to a different
conclusion.
I would like to ask the panelists just a general question
because whether you do something in a charter school or a
private school or public school or flexibility or no
flexibility, when the dust settles, you want what is going on
in the--and you assume it is going to be a classroom--what you
need to provide a quality education. And do we know?
Mr. Mitchell. Sir, I will start, and maybe we can just kind
of run down the line. I think one of the things that Dr.
Bennett said at the outset that is critical to this discussion
is that it is the most important thing to understand is that it
is no one thing, that it is a collection of very complicated,
inter-dependent effects that need to be managed carefully and
that they need to be managed best at the place where students
and teachers come together, at the school and the local
community.
And strong culture, high expectations, a strong reliance on
data to provide continuing feedback on how kids are doing and
how the adults in the system are doing, accountability for
results. That is for kids, it is for parents, and it is for
teachers and absolutely transparency about how money is being
spent, how resources are being used and the outcomes that those
resources are yielding. That would be my recipe, sir.
Mr. Scott. Well, let me ask a specific follow-up question
on the effect of teachers versus the qualified teachers because
this is something we have been trying to grapple with. Can we
effectively measure when we have an effective teacher and when
we don't? Some of the measurements that are presently being
used, I understand, aren't much better than random as to who is
effective and who isn't.
And is there evidence that a teaching background actually
helps? You need a subject matter background, but the teaching
background, I would think, would help, too.
Mr. Bennett. Well, I would first say that the issue in
regard to evaluation instruments, I think, that is a huge issue
that we are tackling today across all states. I think what we
know is what we are doing doesn't work. Indiana is no different
than the rest of the nation. Indiana has 99 percent of its
teachers are rated effective or above.
Now, I think we all know that in a state where you have 60
or 70,000 people, that is statistically impossible. So I think
what we are saying is that you should have 4 categories. And I
do like the 4 categories: highly effective, effective,
improvement needed and ineffective.
And I do not ascribe to a bell-shaped curve distribution or
a set percentage distribution. But I think here is a good
indicator, Congressman. I think you have to take a look at
school performance and human capital performance. You have to
marry those 2 things. And that is why we are going A-F schools.
You know, can a D school or an F school have 99 percent of
its professionals be effective or above? And you have to have a
transparent way and an easy way to marry school accountability
and professional accountability.
Mr. Scott. I want to get in one more question before my
time is expired. And that is we have--everybody has shown
charts about achievement gaps. And we have shown that everybody
can learn. And I just wanted to ask if you could comment on the
civil rights implications of educating one racial group to the
ninth grade and other racial groups to the twelfth grade.
Ms. Keegan. I don't think there is any way to say it is
anything but abysmal. We can predict by, unfortunately, wealth
and by race in this country what achievement is going to look
like. And that is poisonous for us. There is no question.
Mr. Scott. And does that constitute a civil rights
violation?
Ms. Keegan. I believe the violation is that we assign
families into failure. And that, I think, is a violation, when
we know there are schools--we have a cure. And somehow we can't
make that cure available to students. Instead, we assign them
to schools we know have been failing for years. I believe that
is the violation.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you.
Dr. Des Jarlais is recognized.
Mr. DesJarlais. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to wander down just a little different path
than we have so far here this morning.
And, Dr. Bennett, because you were so kind to have the
Indiana's education challenges slide for us, on one of the
topics there, you said that only 58 cents of every education
dollar goes to Indiana classrooms. I have a pretty good guess,
but can you tell the committee where the majority of the other
42 percent goes?
Mr. Bennett. Everywhere but classrooms. You know, I think
we also include capital costs, other costs associated with
transportation, but also a lot of central office
administration. And that is not a condemnation. But I do want
to say this, sir.
I mentioned Warren Township schools, which is about 11,000
schools of students in the school corporation. If you go around
metropolitan Indianapolis, you will frequently hear every one
of their administrators say, ``We have the best central office
in metropolitan Indianapolis. It is also the leanest.''
Mr. DesJarlais. I think I have heard different numbers and
different statistics. And you call can correct me. But I think
roughly about $8,000 per student per year is an average for our
public school systems.
And I have also heard a statistic--and you didn't give me
the answer I hoped, so I will give it back to you. You know,
roughly about 40 percent of our dollars go to bussing in this
country. And when you look at the $8,000 per student, that is a
large piece of the pie. Do you happen to know what percentage
in Indiana it is?
Mr. Bennett. It is not that high. I don't have the exact
amount, but I will get that for you.
Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. Does anybody else on the panel have
any thoughts on that? You know, we hadn't talked about bussing
in a while in education. And I don't know if we perfected the
system. But there was also a study done--and I am not sure if
it was Iowa or Michigan. But there was a bussing strike.
And it was interesting that during that strike, it was long
enough that there was actually a noticeable increase in
academic achievement in the schools. And so, they studied that.
And the reason behind that would be that the 20 minutes a
day that the parents had their students captive in the car to
and from school, they were more in touch with their life, what
was going on, you know, not only academically, but in their
personal lives. And that did have a direct correlation with the
increase. So I would just propose--and if anyone wants to
comment on what we might be able to do to look into the bussing
costs and see whether there are situations where parents can
get more involved in the transportation process.
Ms. Keegan. The way that we fund it is usually it is
separate, as you know, Congressman. So it is mileage routes, or
whatever it is. And it is held out into its own budget. It is
very high. And it would be worth looking at.
Mr. DesJarlais. If there are no other comments, I will
yield back my time.
Chairman Kline [presiding]. Thank the gentleman. Excellent
examples being set.
Mrs. Davis?
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you all for being here. I think we have spoken
quite a bit about teacher effectiveness. And I want to go a
little bit further in the teacher evaluation.
Actually, Mr. Polis and myself have introduced a bill
dealing with teacher evaluations that we hope will be part of
the reauthorization as we move forward. But I think one of the
challenges that we know is when we talk about teacher
evaluation, somehow we want there to be the most optimum
learning environment for children in that setting.
And when you don't have good data, when you don't have a
good growth model, when you don't have principals who know how
to provide good evaluations, all those things make it, I think,
difficult for teachers to buy into what we are trying to do.
And I think what we are all talking about is a collaborative
process so that teachers are the winners in that and kids, of
course, are at the center of that.
How do you get there? Where do you get that buy-in? And do
you think that absent the policy that is supported at the top
of leadership, whether it is among principals or among teachers
that we can move forward with that? What would you suggest that
we do to bring that together?
And I think, Dr. Bennett, you have certainly spoken to it
as well as Mr. Mitchell and others.
Mr. Bennett. Well, first, let me start by saying I don't
know of a professional that doesn't want to be evaluated
annually. And our teacher quality bill proposes that. And it is
getting great push-back from our teacher unions.
We have to cite a newspaper article, I met with the
superintendent of Indianapolis public schools last year about 6
of his under-performing schools. He identified with teacher
union representatives present that 60 percent of the teachers
in those schools were ineffective.
Yet, we have far too many labor contracts in Indiana that
don't allow these teachers to be annually evaluated. I spoke to
a principal just this week who said after 5 years of service,
he cannot evaluate a teacher unless they are really bad.
And so, I think we have to first and foremost say
evaluations should be annual. I think we do have good data. I
think student engagement--you know, the Gates Foundation did a
phenomenal study on what teachers believe is effective in
evaluations. And I think we do have good data, and we should
tap into that.
But I would also say I think when we talk about this
evaluation piece, we should be tapping our local school
corporations to help us develop those tools because I don't
think 50 states can do it all by themselves. We have to have
the centers of innovation at the local level.
Mrs. Davis. Could you just follow up just briefly? When you
talk about the local corporations, what is it specifically that
they are?
Mr. Bennett. Our school districts in Indiana we call them
corporations. I am sorry.
Mrs. Davis. Okay.
Mr. Mitchell. (OFF MIKE) [Laughter.]
Mrs. Davis. Okay.
Mr. Bennett. I am very sorry. You know, it is Indiana-
speak.
Mrs. Davis. So the school boards themselves are developing?
Mr. Bennett. Yes, school districts.
Mrs. Davis. With collaboration between the different
institutions or kind of on their own?
Mr. Bennett. Well, yes, I would--I assume that will be the
case. Again, this is an issue again, in many of our labor
contracts, the teacher evaluation tool, the teacher evaluation
process are embedded in the labor contract.
Mrs. Davis. Right.
Mr. Bennett. So I think once again it is an issue where we
must demand that professionals be evaluated annually and
rigorously and that the feedback they get is meaningful. And I
think there is good data for that.
Mr. Mitchell. And it is not--I think we need to move beyond
the rhetorical, full-stop about using evaluation to get rid of
bad teachers. This is about creating a talent management system
that helps the best teach the next best and helps build up the
profession and helps teachers grow in areas where they need
growth. So I fully support where Dr. Bennett is leading, which
is that we need to experiment.
We need to encourage local communities to develop different
tools, different techniques. We need to learn from those. We
also need to include organizations that are less constrained by
collective bargaining agreements that would include Catholic
schools, independent schools and public--many, many public
charter schools.
Mrs. Davis. Can I--because I don't have much more time.
Mr. Mitchell. Certainly.
Mrs. Davis. In the reauthorization, do you all see that
there is a carrot and stick approach to this so that this is, I
guess one would call it a mandate--over a period of time where
you give people, you know, a lot of help and a lot of support
in developing those? But that at the end of the day, that we
want to see that this is a process that all schools have.
Because if we don't have the scalability throughout the
country, we are not going to get there essentially.
Ms. Keegan. I don't know why you would want to do that at
the federal level. I think what you want to do is get rid of
the prohibitions. So let's just empty the big elephant in the
room.
Let's not have contracts that say you can't walk in a
classroom and evaluate a teacher whenever you want, that you
can't relate a teacher's assessment data to her performance,
that you can't hire and fire teachers on the basis of their
performance. That is in almost every contract in American
schools.
So the best thing to do would be to lift that up and be
transparent about it, find out who is--there are great
evaluative processes. They are different all over the place.
But what they have in common is the liberty to act.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Chairman Kline. Thank you.
Mr. Hunter, you are recognized.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The first question--
and set me straight here. You have about just under 100,000 K-
12 schools in the U.S. And from what I understand--correct me
if I am wrong--about 2,000 of those schools are responsible for
about 50 percent of our dropouts.
So my question is when you talk about the OSP or you talk
about competitive grants, those 2,000 schools that are
responsible for the majority of our dropouts--as you break
those down into urban, suburban or rural schools, how do you
see OSP or competitive grants being more effective in which
area? And my question goes to everybody. Thank you.
Mr. Coulson. Well, I think that by encouraging the OSP at
the federal level, you will encourage states to make similar
programs around the country. There already are similar programs
around the country. And those programs are helping kids in all
kinds of different districts. And as virtual learning
progresses, they will be able to reach into even remote rural
areas, as we discussed earlier.
So just increasing the amount of choice and providing a
model for the states on how to increase the amount of choice is
going to help raise graduation rates, lower the dropout rate,
based on the evidence we have to date. So, I think, set the
model, and it will be followed. And it will be effective.
Mr. Bennett. Mr. Hunter, I would add that, first of all,
obviously, strong accountability is number one. You know, we
can't allow those schools to operate if they are not serving
children. That is number one.
But we did something a little different. When we got to the
department in 2009, we trimmed our staff by about 25 percent.
And we took the savings from that and with part of that
savings, we actually offered our schools across the state a
graduation rate incentive program.
So the top 10 schools in the state that had the highest
percentage of non-waivered graduations, we are going to give
those schools $20,000 to distribute to the critical personnel
who made that happen.
So I think we have to get a little innovative. We have to
think a little differently. We have to offer incentives for
what works. We have to set high expectations. And again, I
can't emphasize enough that when schools don't perform and kids
don't graduate, we have to hold the school accountable.
Mr. Hunter. How much time did you gauge that improvement
over?
Mr. Bennett. That was a one-year.
Mr. Hunter. And it was improvement, not total graduation
numbers, but the improvement in graduation?
Mr. Bennett. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hunter. Okay.
Mr. Mitchell. And we have seen examples across the
country--Mastery public schools in Philadelphia--that have
achieved dramatic turnaround in one and 2-year periods, turning
around those lowest performing schools, those dropout
factories. It can be done.
Mr. Hunter. Doing what, sir?
Mr. Mitchell. So in this case, the public charter school
environment, so very different rules and regulations regarding
the deployment of human capital and talent. But the creation
of--as we have talked about before--extremely high
expectations, no excuses for adults or kids, the development of
a strong program with rigorous assessment and continuous
feedback.
Ms. Keegan. Just a comment, Mr. Hunter, about those
schools, the Mastery schools in Philadelphia. When you
interview the students and you listen to them, that is probably
the most illustrative thing you can do is to talk to a set of
kids who didn't change, who stayed in place and all the adults
changed. And their life changed.
And it is a lovely, lovely story that is going on there in
Philadelphia. And that is just one example. There is thousands
of those across the country. But that one is really--that is a
great example.
Mr. Hunter. And you have all named different programs that
you have used or seen used to bring schools out of that funk,
whether it is public charter schools or the incentivized
program to have a higher graduation percentage. So do you--when
you look at OSP or you look at competitive grants, do you see
either of those working better in certain areas? Or is it one
of those things where you suggest leave it to the local school
districts?
Mr. Mitchell. Yes.
Mr. Hunter. Let the states and the school district choose
which one of those things would work better for them.
Mr. Mitchell. Yes. And to that, those tools, the open
enrollment and parent choice for alternatives to be created for
the kids in those schools.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you all.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman. I don't think I have
ever seen a simultaneous nod by all the panelists quite like
that one.
Ms. Woolsey?
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to this panel. Far too many of our nation's
children go to school hungry or without proper medical care.
Some come from unsafe homes, have to walk through unsafe
neighborhoods. Many students don't have someone to help them
with their homework at home or a place to go after school,
actually.
I believe that schools and communities need to be able to
offer support services to children and their families so that
children are ready to learn--and that is the operative word
here--when they enter the classroom. Otherwise, how can a
teacher be effective if their student body is not ready to
learn?
And so, my question is--and we will start with you, Mr.
Mitchell. What are your views about the relationship between
academic achievement and ensuring that children are healthy,
well-fed and safe, in other words, ready to learn when they
enter the classroom? And should we strive for a common
standard, possibly a federal standard, to provide these
services, but regardless of what school a child attends?
Mr. Mitchell. So clearly, a child who comes to school
hungry and with aching teeth and serious family problems is
going to be less able to attend to the academic enterprise than
the student who comes well-fed, cheery and well-scrubbed. There
is no question.
Ms. Woolsey. Right.
Mr. Mitchell. And we need to address that. And I think that
Mr. Miller spoke eloquently about it a while ago. I think that
a part of the issue that those kids face is a multiplicity of
social service agencies, that are not at all connected to each
other, to create the environment in which kids are ready to
learn. So I would say that the first imperative is to work
across the silos of public service to help those kids.
The second thing----
Ms. Woolsey. Can I ask you a question while you are there?
Mr. Mitchell. Please.
Ms. Woolsey. How do you see bringing those services to the
school site where parents and children, everybody--it becomes a
common ground? Do you see that a logical place to provide these
services?
Mr. Mitchell. I do. I think that that is one option. I
think that the theme that I think we are all pushing is that
that is not a silver bullet. I think that that is one approach,
communities in which the social service agencies work together
in their own areas, but use a common data system, for example,
well-protected to protect students' rights, but to be able to
create a case map of kids.
In the schools where we work, it is no surprise that
extending the school day and providing some of those kinds of
supports, but also the extended safe period for kids, has
become one of the trends that no one prescribed, but it has
just grown up over time. And the research on extended learning
time that is growing, first out of Massachusetts and now in
other states, is quite compelling, that extended learning time
can go a long way to addressing many of those needs.
Ms. Woolsey. So other thoughts----
Mr. Coulson. Yes.
Ms. Woolsey [continuing]. On being ready to learn when you
enter the classroom?
Mr. Coulson. As you may have guessed from all the charts in
my presentation, I am an engineer. My first career was in
software engineering. But I am going to break with tradition
here and tell you an anecdote, which may get me kicked out of
my geek clubs.
But I have a friend I have grown to really love over the
years who turned around a charter school in California. His
name is Ben Chaves. And he now has 3 charter schools that he
runs. And there are 2 others that follow the same model.
In his charter schools, about 90 percent of kids qualify
for free and reduced-price lunches. He doesn't have a
lunchroom. He doesn't participate in the Title I program
because he doesn't serve lunch.
And some children will come to him at the beginning of the
school year, and they will say, well, you know, I can't bring a
lunch. And so, he tells them, ``Well, you can either bring a
lunch, or there is a restaurant just 2 blocks from the school
that will make a lunch for you every morning if you just go
there and work for a couple hours washing dishes on Saturday
morning.'' He has never had a child take him up on that.
All of his kids do bring lunches. And now, this sounds
Draconian. I know it sounds Draconian. And the only reason I
think he was able to do it was that he grew up an often
shoeless child of sharecroppers among a community of Native
American Indians in North Carolina in absolute poverty.
Ms. Woolsey. Well, how old are these children that have to
go----
Mr. Coulson. This is a middle school.
Ms. Woolsey. Well, how old are they?
Mr. Coulson. This is a middle school. And let me just
finish the anecdote--just to say this is the highest performing
middle school in the entire state of California. It went from
the worst school in Oakland in 2001 to the highest performing
middle school in the entire state by 2007 and is still ranked
near the top.
Mr. Bennett. Ms. Woolsey, if I may--and I am going to kind
of go with, kind of, what Andrew--I will get kicked out of the
hard and tough club on this one. But, you know, I want to--
first, we have some school corporations in our state that have
actually put health clinics, they have partnered with
hospitals, immediate care centers, different social service
organizations to provide these services for children.
And what this comes down to, in my opinion, are courageous
leaders who say, what is our core mission, and how are we going
to drive resources to that core mission. So, you know, we have
to make tough decisions. This goes to that statement about
marrying fiscal policy and education policy.
We have to put our money into the things that are going to
drive results. And these school corporations that have done
this around the state of Indiana have had to make tough fiscal
decisions to provide these services for children, but they have
made a difference in the lives of those children.
Chairman Kline. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Dr. Roe?
Mr. Roe. Well, Dr. Bennett, welcome back. And thanks to
this great panel. You all have been fantastic.
And there is not anybody--and, Mr. Coulson, I want to point
out that line that you showed that was going--I did not
contribute to that. [Laughter.]
And everyone in this room on both sides of the aisle--I
mean, there is not anyone sitting in this room that doesn't
want the best for our students and our kids. And we want that.
And we need that as a nation.
And, Ms. Keegan, I am going to ask you and Dr. Bennett--you
all hit on it--and anybody can answer, if they want to--about
how do we retain our quality teachers. I am a product of the
public school system. The first school I went to had 2 rooms, 6
grades, 2 rooms and one teacher, a phenomenal teacher, Ms.
Clark. I still remember her to this day.
And I absolutely believe that is a centerpiece, and you
said that. And we have now got as many clipboard carriers as we
do classroom teachers, almost, in our schools any more.
So 50 percent of the young people that enter--that are
going to be teachers never become teachers. And 50 percent of
them, after 5 years, quit. How do we retain these folks?
Ms. Keegan. I think, first and foremost, we recruit from
the top of universities for our teachers. I mean, teachers
always loved schools. I mean, you have got to seek the geek.
They love academics. They loved school. They had their hand up
in the classroom. They wanted to be there.
What we know about achievement is the one thing we can
relate it to is the SAT score of a teacher. And so, it is
important that we do that. But I think, secondly and most
importantly, we give them the liberty to leave. Because when
you recruit from the top like that, you are recruiting people
who have always sought to be the very best.
And when they go into environments where they don't have
the liberty to work the hours that it takes to come up with
programs they would like to install, to take leadership because
of what they do that is effective and not because they just
lived long enough, they get thwarted, our best. And
fortunately, right now what happens is they go around and they
end-run. And we have given them the opportunity to do that. And
they usually go start a school.
But we have to make sure that we leave teachers at the
center of this enterprise. And, as Mr. Mitchell said, there is
no place in this system for somebody who doesn't want to work
the hours that it takes in this day and age when we have a huge
problem, we need all of that incredible passion that comes to
bear in great teaching. And we just can't keep thwarting them
with regulations that are calcified and just wear them out.
Mr. Roe. I have a lot of patients as teachers and had an
opportunity--my wife taught in an inner city school in Memphis
when I was there in medical school. And then we moved to a
community where every child's parent had a college education.
Well, those all looked like good teachers because all the kids
did well, because, guess what? The parents insisted on the fact
that their kids learn.
They read to them. They did all those things. So I see
teachers, good teachers in schools where they don't get to--you
know, they don't get to pick who their students are. For
instance, I--to me, the most distressing piece of testimony I
have heard since I have been in this Congress is that 3 out of
4 kids dropped out of school in Detroit, Michigan. That is
heartbreaking when you hear that. That is a failed city. And
that is a failure we can't live with as a nation.
Mr. Bennett. Mr. Roe, if I may, I think it is a very--I
have a lot of passion about this because now I am going to go
back to my hard and tough position. We have situations in our
state--and I am just going to tell you a very quick clause of a
union contract that exists in Indiana.
If you and I were hired on the same day to teach fifth
grade in this school corporation in Indiana and we had to
reduce the budget and they had to make a decision which one of
us leaves, they add up the last 4 digits of our Social Security
number. And the person with the highest sum gets to stay. That
is why we are recommending, as part of our legislative package,
that teacher contracts be limited to wages and wage-related
fringe benefits so that we can start recognizing and rewarding
our greatest teachers.
I think the saddest thing about education is the happiest
financial day in an educator's life is the day they walk out
the door. And that is wrong. So we have to build a structure
that allows us to recognize and reward the greatest teachers
that we have.
Today is my triplets' 25th birthday. I called them this
morning and wished them Happy Birthday, told them where I was
going and what I was doing. And I said, ``What would you say?''
And they said, Dad--you know, my son said, Ms. Barley was the
greatest teacher I ever had. Trish said, you know, Dad, Ms.
Beaton was the greatest teacher I ever had. And you know, what?
Those 2 teachers should have made $100,000. And it is a
shame we have a situation where collective bargaining
agreements are there for the benefits of adults and not to
upheld the learning of children.
Mr. Roe. I hope you called your wife this morning, too.
Mr. Bennett. She was fourth.
Mr. Roe. And just one last question, very quickly, to Mr.
Mitchell. And I have heard this bantered around. I don't know
whether it is true or not, that in California, there are as
many administrators as there are classroom teachers in the
education system.
Mr. Mitchell. I don't know the answer to that. But I would
be happy to find out.
Mr. Roe. I hope it is not true.
But thank you, panel.
I yield back my time.
Mr. Mitchell. I will find out--just school board staff.
That is the----
Chairman Kline. All right.
Ms. Hirono?
Ms. Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As we focus on evidence-based educational reform, there are
2 areas where there is a lot of evidence that these are the
areas that truly will make a change in a student's ability to
succeed in school and in life. One of these areas is quality
early education. And there is a lot of evidence to say that
every dollar we spend on quality early education will not only
enable that student to succeed in school and in life, but it
really gives back to us many times fold in terms of dollars.
So, Dr. Bennett, you did not mention early education, the
quality early education as important. Do you consider it to be
a foundational aspect of a child's education?
Mr. Bennett. Yes, I do. And I would tell you, sadly, that
Indiana ranks fairly low in terms of our full-day kindergarten
and pre-school early childhood education.
I do think that it is very important, though--two things I
think I need to say. First, it is very important that we don't
see that as a silver bullet. You know? Because again, I think
we have gotten into this thing that we have to keep pushing
down the responsibility of when kids get ready. And I don't
think that just pre-school or early childhood education is
going to fix the current system we have.
Ms. Hirono. I completely agree with you because there is no
silver bullet to anything. We have to do a range of things. But
this is one that there is a lot of evidence to show that it is
important. So if the federal government were to provide, for
example, grants--because every state is in a different place in
terms of support of quality early education. If the federal
government were to provide grants to encourage states to move
toward providing quality early education, would you consider
that to be a helpful thing for the federal government to do?
Mr. Bennett. Depending on how it was structured, yes.
Ms. Hirono. Well, leaving it to the local entities, by the
way, not for the federal government to prescribe what quality
early education should be, except in the more--in the most
general ways. You would find that helpful?
Mr. Bennett. I could see that as positive.
Ms. Hirono. Dr. Mitchell, would you agree that quality
education should be something that the federal government
should provide some support for?
Mr. Mitchell. I think that that support would be helpful.
But I think that the word that is complicated in that is
quality. Because I think at the--just at the time when we are
beginning to develop real transparency around the outcomes that
we want and then giving local agencies and organizations the
freedom to pursue those outcomes--I would hate us to then move
into an early education environment without a clear set of
outcomes.
Ms. Hirono. I agree with you. Just as we are wrestling with
what makes for an effective teacher, that there should be some
kind of, you know----
Mr. Mitchell. Right.
Ms. Hirono [continuing]. Quantitative way to do that, to
ensure quality. So that gets me to the other area where
evidence shows that the teacher standing in front of that
classroom is the single most important person affecting student
learning. So the effectiveness of that teacher is really
important. And as we struggle with what makes for an effective
teacher, there is not a lot of science behind what makes for an
effective teacher.
And so, I wanted to ask Dr. Bennett, you seem to already
have moved toward doing an assessment of your teachers based on
effectiveness. And I wanted to ask you, what exactly goes into
whether or not a teacher--where that teacher ranks on the
effective/ineffective scale.
Mr. Bennett. Well, first, we have a model that we took a
great deal of national research--Charlotte Danielson, a number
of others, you know, education experts in the field of teacher
evaluation--and we have developed a model. But I want to be
clear that the state is not going to prescribe that.
You know, we are going to set some guidelines and
guardrails: student engagement, student growth. You can use
growth on--you may use other standardized tests: ACT, SAT. And
then there will be a number of subjective: the principal
evaluation.
It could be peer review. It could be parent survey, student
survey. So we are going to--we would like, at the state level,
to offer our local school corporations, school districts a menu
of guidelines and guardrails to build their evaluation systems
so that, again, we can take those and spread those best
practices statewide.
Ms. Hirono. So have any of your school corporations
implemented your--any part of your model for effectiveness
ranking?
Mr. Bennett. We are on, like, the ninth iteration, ma'am,
of the model where we have gotten input from educators. We have
a couple of school corporations who are piloting this. We don't
have any data back yet. But again, this is all in proposed
legislation right now. So we are hoping to have that in the
years to come out of the legislative agenda.
Ms. Hirono. I think the effectiveness evaluation--we have
to get that right also. And so, I commend you for your efforts.
Part of the effectiveness of teachers, though, is
preparation. And, Dr. Mitchell, I think your testimony alluded
to the importance of teacher preparation. So can you talk a
little bit more about what should go into teacher preparation?
Because, you know, I think one of the criticisms is that a lot
of the education--the teacher schools, I guess, teacher
training schools, are really back in the 20th century. So----
Chairman Kline. I am sorry. The gentlelady's time has
expired. And I am afraid that answer might be a little bit
long.
Mr. Rokita, you are recognized.
Mr. Rokita. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the witnesses' time today. You all seem--as I
read your testimony and heard you answer questions, I am
inspired. I am motivated. I am appreciative that you are in the
education system helping our nation's children.
I especially want to recognize my friend from Indiana, Tony
Bennett. In previous service, I was Indiana's secretary of
state. So I had an opportunity to work a lot with Tony.
I also want to say thank you to Tony on behalf of my kids,
Teddy, who is 3, Ryan, who is 1--as a result of your and
others' efforts, you know, my kids, have a chance to go to a
public school. And the money that Kathy and I are currently
saving, otherwise we might be able to use for something else. I
thank you as well.
Tony, you and I have talked about this fact. We both talk
about it everywhere we go in the state, that schools should be
for the kids, that not necessarily--they shouldn't necessarily
be for the janitors, the janitor's union or even the teachers
union. They have got to be for the kids if we are going to be
competitive in the 21st century.
Having said all that, I would still argue that education is
this country's and our state's second biggest problem. And you
all alluded to that a little bit earlier when you talked about
what kids needed in schools.
As secretary of state, we adopted school 54, an
Indianapolis public school. And I would send our attorneys, and
I would--we would go to read and participate in after-school
events with them. And what I learned there was that it is very
hard for a teacher, it is very hard for a school system to do
their job when a lot of the children have no structure at home.
They barely have a home.
They might fall asleep on the couch watching TV at 2 in the
morning. They may then have to go to school without a coat the
next day. And we expect the system, and we expect these
teachers to then educate.
And some of the answers I heard you say earlier to this,
kind of, problem were multiplicity and social services and
breaking down the silo, longer school hours. And I would like
each of you, maybe starting with Tony, to tell me if there is a
way for us to use the school system, remembering that it is for
the kids first, to help build the family, to help maintain the
family or rebuild the family, rather than trying to supplant
the family or take up the vacuum where the family should be,
because I think disintegration of our families is actually this
country's biggest problem.
Mr. Bennett. And, Mr. Rokita, first, thanks for your
service to the state of Indiana. It was wonderful to serve with
you. And you were a beacon of leadership in our state.
But I also want to say something that Dr. Mitchell talked
about. Good schools, great schools have positive feedback
loops. That is something I think, we all see in schools where
we work and serve.
When schools operate at a culture of very high
expectations, the adults in the schools accept no excuses--and,
again, we--I worked with a very talented principal by the name
of Sheila Rohr in a very impoverished school in New Albany,
Indiana, who got in her car and went to pick up parents to come
to parent/teacher conferences. Okay? She says you must attend.
We need you.
Now, those are very difficult things to do. But you know
what? Those schools generate a positive feedback loop. The
students succeed. The parents want to be involved. The parents
want to be involved. The students succeed more.
But I think, again, it starts with us as state leaders
developing a culture that every school in the state must attain
at the highest level. And we have to do whatever it takes to
make that happen. So I think that is how you support the
family, is by having great schools that accept nothing but the
best from their students, who will then go home and influence
the family to be involved.
Ms. Keegan. Okay, it is such a great question. And I would
really encourage--we should give you as many examples as we
can. There are so many schools that have figured that problem
out. And it isn't easy, but they do it over and over and over
again. There are brands of schools, uncommon schools, the KIPP
schools. There are little private----
Mr. Rokita. KIPP Schools--I was going to mention.
Ms. Keegan. Yes.
Mr. Rokita. They have a tripartite contract of some sort
that brings the parents in.
Ms. Keegan. They do. They do. And that is a feature of
almost all of these schools. Because where kids and families
have not had the kind of structure that comes so naturally to
families who have had it for generations, it is not that they
can't get it or don't want it. I have seen in urban communities
little, tiny private schools where families are actually
paying, like, $3,000 a year, and they get together around a
church, and they learn how to do that.
So the schools themselves--it is all about the leaders in
that school. And, as Dr. Bennett says, a commitment to get it
right. And what I hope we do is inspire people to believe it
can happen. Because you only do what you think is possible. And
teachers in a classroom sometimes get to feeling like they are
oppressed by this system and it can't be done. It can be done.
And so, contact one of us and just ask us where it is
getting done if you find a school that is not doing it. And we
will find a peer to them, I guarantee you, same constituent
students, same socioeconomics, whatever it is, and we can match
them with a school that is just knocking it out of the park.
Mr. Rokita. Right.
Chairman Kline. Thank you. The gentleman's time has
expired.
Mr. Miller has a second question he would like to ask.
Mr. Miller. Thank you. I think there may be a question, but
just a couple of comments on this panel because I started out
with a very broad question.
But first of all, I want to say this to Dr. Bennett. When
you mentioned that you got your data system from Colorado, I
want to say thank you because I understand that is also a huge
savings in money that you didn't think you had to do it from
the beginning, that you could build on what they had done--I
know they have made that offer to my state.
I don't know if they accepted it or not. But they made an
offer to a lot of states that they had a system that was--that
others could use. So thank you. Nice to see 2 states working
together. [Laughter.]
I asked the question in the beginning about flexibility and
accountability. And it seems to me, when I listen to the
comments and the answers to the questions and the questions by
the members, that a lot of this becomes very possible if, in
fact, we do have a growth model--that we do have an
accountability system that is real, that has real measurable
goals and purposes to it, that it is not growth to nowhere, as
my state tried for a couple years a while ago, and that it is
inclusive, obviously, of the entire student body, that it is
inclusive of all of the students that we have a responsibility
to.
At that point, if it is a performance-driven system, then I
think there is some comfort level at the federal level that we
are meeting our mandate under this, what is considered,
obviously, a basic civil rights law in the ESEA. I was saying
the question of choice that is clearly very prevalent now that
wasn't prevalent then. And it is in many different forms, many,
many different forms, as I said, from the Internet to private
or a charter school, if you will.
I don't know what the level of intensity is. But we have to
be cognizant that these are big--that these are very mixed
districts and states, as Senator Enzi will remind us over and
over. There is no real other choice in rural Wyoming.
But there are options for rural Wyoming--and that we not
start getting on our high horse about one or the other and
suggest that the federal government should pick those, but
understanding that this student population should move across
the range of options, and parents and others have that
available to them.
I also think it is becoming clear, listening to
conversation over the last couple of years, that it would be
hard to think that you are going to have an ESEA bill that
doesn't have something about evaluations in it. But I also
think it is going to have to be evaluations that evolve.
I think it has to be about evaluations that are inclusive,
that have partners, that have skin in the game, we like to say.
The entrepreneurs--this is about skin in the game, where
teachers have got to have skin in the game. They have to have
say in the game. They have to have stakes and outcomes.
So we already see some large districts that have headed
down that road and put these in place, whether it is in
Connecticut or Colorado or elsewhere or Illinois. But I think
at the federal level, again, we have to be prepared that this
is on a continuous improvement model. It is not all going to
happen the first year. It is not all going to happen the second
year.
As you point out, you are on your ninth iteration of this.
And I assume that means that you have to acknowledge, again,
the buy-in, the participation, the commitment, the skin, the
stakes by all of the parties, certainly, within the district.
But I would say at that site.
Because I go back to as I started this question, I look at
some of these large--and I am from a more or less urban/
suburban population. I look at the partnerships and the options
that have to be created.
You mentioned the health--it is critical in some of these
neighborhoods. There is no other access, except a real long
ride to the hospital. But the county health systems and the
public health systems believe they are getting a huge advantage
by partnering with these schools--so those kinds of options.
So I think this panel has been very helpful, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to thank you for the hearing.
These are big, tough issues. A lot of them have really long
tails in the Congress of the United States. But I also think
that there are a lot of pathways that have been developed over
the lifespan of No Child Left Behind. But, again, as I started
out, it is clearly time to move on. And it is clearly time to
take that data and see what we can do to help empower states
and districts to take advantage of it.
Because the examples of success with the exact population
that we lament, and we express our concerns for, are so
compelling now and numerous. Not enough--you know, this is a
huge nation. And we are talking about 1 percent of the students
who are involved in many of these options.
But they tell us what is possible. And we have to be about
enabling what is possible with this. But I will always go back
to the idea that is based on the foundation of accountability
because I sat on this committee for 20 years where those
outcomes were hidden.
We changed tests at the state level every 2 or 3 years. We
changed superintendents every 2 or 3 years. We changed--you
know? And parents were at sea. The minute they were published
in the newspaper for the first time, parents got an idea of
what the hell was going on. And they started becoming
interested in this.
So thank you very much for participating with the
committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for putting this panel together.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Walberg?
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would associate
my comments with previous chairman, Mr. Miller, on this. This
is an exceptional, exceptional hearing.
And, frankly, it is worth all the work in coming back after
my involuntary layoff, coming back to this committee to hear
what is going on here. Because, frankly, nothing gets my
excitement juices flowing more than hearing excitement about
educating our young people.
Being a parent who had the opportunity, but because I took
it, to use all sorts of approaches in educating my own 3
children. Whether it was public school, private school,
homeschool, vocational school, I saw the benefits of having
teachers and administrators who were committed to my kids,
meeting them where they were at and educating them to their
fullest potential, to see my daughter, who academically was not
as gifted. And she would admit that--as her two brothers, but
has gone beyond them in academic achievement in her field, even
into graduate studies, because teachers had the opportunity to
do what they do best in educating my child.
So I would like to ask a question. And that is in light, as
well, Mr. Coulson, of you just making me angry when you showed
this chart, to think of what has been lost in educating young
people over those years, with huge expenditures that, frankly,
have been wasted, if these statistics are right. More than
wasted, they have been abused, to our regret and our expense
and our kids' future and advancement of this country.
But let me ask this question. And any and all could jump
in. But I ask Mr. Coulson, you first. And, keeping in mind an
underlying concern that I want you to color your answer with,
if you would, please. What is the most effective place for the
federal government in education? And I am willing to hear,
``Stay out,'' if that is what you are feeling.
You mentioned that we have spent $151,000 per student for a
graduating class of 2009, which is nearly 3 times that of what
we spent for those in 1970. This increase resulted, if
statistics are accurate, in decreased student achievement.
Is there any other issue area where we see these alarming
numbers as well? And what would you recommend we could do to
change this trend?
Mr. Coulson. My answer on what the federal government can
do is, obviously, constrained somewhat by my view of the
constitutional limits of its role. But really, in practice, it
is not. We have seen $2 trillion worth of federal programs
produce essentially no result in either gap narrowing or
overall achievement. And so, another federal program is not
likely to do any better than this 45-year history, with the
striking exception of the opportunity scholarships program.
And this is a really interesting situation because around
the country, there is growing bipartisanship in support for
school choice programs just like the opportunity scholarships
program. But there is still some considerable resistance to
these programs, some political resistance, some entrenched
opposition.
If Congress can get together and in a bipartisan way extend
that program and grow that program, the impact that it would
have on the ability of state legislators to produce similar
programs, similar legislation would be enormous. So for
Congress to show that it so values this program and what it is
achieving, despite the partisan differences that may exist over
it, for obvious reasons, I think that would be a beacon to the
nation that would have a lasting and dramatic effect improving
education in this country.
Mr. Bennett. Mr. Walberg, if I may, I would say--I would
suggest that, again, we do live in a national and an
international society. So to just say that, you know, states
are--have done a good job of setting their own standards to
help kids be competitive in a global economy--it is folks like
me that haven't held up their end of the bargain. We haven't
held schools accountable.
But I want to answer your question directly. I would like
to see the federal government work with states as we want to
work with our local school corporations. Set the bar high. Set
incredibly high expectations. Put guardrails in place to ensure
quality. Enforce strict accountability. If we don't do the job,
don't give us money.
Give states the flexibility, just like we want to give the
locals the flexibility, to achieve the goals. And then the last
thing is please get out of our way.
Mr. Mitchell. So let me build on that. I agree. High bar,
transparency, especially around kids who have traditionally
been failed by the systems, resources that are tied to results,
but are flexible to states and from states to local districts.
And what I would add would be support innovation because
innovation is a brave act, whether it is political innovation
or creating new ideas and new enterprises that help kids. It is
a brave act that needs to be supported politically and
financially.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
I am sorry, Ms. Keegan.
Mr. Thompson, you are recognized.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks to the panel for your expertise on this very
important issue we are looking at today.
You know, as I look at the competitiveness of this nation,
the key factor of our succeeding in the future is the
competitive workforce. It is a qualified workforce. It is about
preparing our youth to take those roles--and whatever walk of
life where they are--wherever they are led and wherever they
go. And so, this is such an important topic today.
Dr. Bennett, in your testimony, you highlight Indiana's
education agenda, putting students first. How do the 3 colors
of the state's agenda work towards improving student access in
either college or the workforce?
Mr. Bennett. Well, first, the first issue is obviously,
teacher and principal quality, the ability to make sure that
the folks who are leading our schools and teaching our kids are
of the highest quality and delivering the best quality
instruction based on standards that make them college or
career-ready. Two, it is to give the local school corporations
the flexibility they need to innovate, as Mr.--as Dr. Mitchell
mentioned, but holding them accountable so that kids from Gary
get equal educational opportunities that kids in Evansville
get.
And finally, to give all children options. You have heard
this. This has been a theme among this panel: charter options,
private school options. We are big--and I think Indiana has
proven this in the last 2 years in tough budget times. We have
increased our state's standardized test scores, increased
graduation rate and increased A.P. participation and success.
Okay?
So I only say that because competition in the system and
accountability in the system and freedom in the system have
worked. And that is how we are going to drive more success
among our children, is to put those 3 factors into an education
system and make it work.
Mr. Thompson. Well, I certainly agree with you. I think
those are principles that have worked in every industry in
terms of success, ultimately. You had mentioned about equality,
an issue I look at very closely. I represent a very rural
district. And Indiana, I think, demographically is a lot like
Pennsylvania, very similar.
I was just interested in your observation of this. There is
a tremendous discrepancy in terms of the amount of dollars that
comes in for students in different school districts. And I see
discrepancies between, certainly, rural schools and urban
schools, but even between different urban schools.
And some of the issues I have kind of come up against--I
served a number of years on a school board. Education was very
important to me, even with competitive grants, that rural
school districts don't tend to have the resources to have the
grant writers. And so, I liked anything with the word
competition in it. But competitive grants don't tend to be
competitive because they tend to be slanted towards larger
districts with resources.
The people are dedicated to pursuing and chasing those
dollars. Even formula funding is--I find, is biased towards
large schools, not necessarily large schools that have a high
percentages of these children and significant discrepancies in
dollars. And I am not talking about spending more money. I am
talking about how the money is distributed currently. Any
observations in that area?
Mr. Bennett. Well, first, I am going to go back to the
comment I made earlier. And I think this is something we have
failed at the federal level. And I think, probably if you asked
50 state leaders, they would say we failed at the state level.
And that--you know--and I will use Indiana. On April 29th
at the eleventh hour, when our general assembly is about to
end, as I sometimes say, the smoke will come out of the
chimney, and 12 people will emerge from the fourth floor office
and say, ``We know how to fund education.''
And during this same time, we have had 12 people in another
room talking about education policy. And they don't ever put
those 2 things together. We have never married fiscal policy
and education policy. And I think when we afford rural schools
the opportunity to build collaborative so that they are not
applying by themselves, they compete.
And I think we have to start looking at education. Whether
it is school choice, whether it is evaluation pay, we have to
have the courage to marry fiscal policy and education policy.
And we haven't done that because we always try to minimize the
losers. And we have to say in a system that competes, sometimes
people will fall short.
Mr. Thompson. Very good. Well, I think my time is about
done, so I will yield back the few seconds remaining.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman.
Mrs. Biggert, you are recognized.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I am sorry I missed all of your testimony. I also have
a markup in another committee. But I did want to come and at
least hear some of your expertise.
I was wondering about the Race to the Top and how--maybe,
Dr. Bennett, particularly you. I understand that you turned it
down. Is that correct?
Mr. Bennett. We chose not to participate in round 2.
Mrs. Biggert. Right. And I am from Illinois. And so, we had
participated in both the round one and round 2 and did not
receive it. But there were--and I don't think that this
committee really had the opportunity to really have hearings on
this or before this program came from the Department of
Education and from the top down. And we never really had
anything to do with it before it came into effect.
I would like to know, maybe, why you turned it down or--
because we are always hearing, well, this Race to the Top is,
kind of, now the template for the reauthorization of the K-12.
How does that fit into this program? Have any of you worked
with it? Or how effective is it going to be to help with our
reauthorization?
Mr. Bennett. Well, I will speak very quickly to why we did
not participate. And I don't want to be--I don't want to sound
boastful. But I do believe that at the end of this thing,
Indiana will be a state that will get to the top without
accepting the Race to the Top money and the strings that were
attached.
For Indiana, it was a decision that it is much easier for
me as a state leader to work with our general assembly, our
courageous governor to initiate the type of reforms that,
frankly, Race to the Top talked about than it was to prove to
the federal government we could implement those reforms.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you.
Anybody else have any comments?
Mr. Coulson. Yes, I would just like to make a very brief
comment, which is that the idea behind Race to the Top, one of
the core ideas of it, is excellent, which is having competition
in order to satisfy a customer. And there being financial
rewards for people who do a good job of satisfying the customer
and no financial reward for those who aren't good. The only
problem with Race to the Top is that the customer is the
administration of the federal government instead of families.
A system in which families are the customer and schools are
competing to serve them is well-proven by research, both
domestically and internationally, as a great system for
improving educational outcomes and efficiency. Having states
compete to serve the federal government is not a proven way of
improving education.
Mr. Mitchell. Can I dive in? Because I want to express
solidarity as a 2-time loser ourselves in Race to the Top.
[Laughter.]
And I want to juxtapose 3 of us. I want to juxtapose Dr.
Bennett's experience with ours in California. And Ms. Keegan
and I both talked while you were off at the markup--talked
about one of the important roles the federal government can
play is in providing the kinds of incentives that make the
politics different.
Indiana is a wonderful example of a state in which, thanks
to Dr. Bennett's leadership and the leadership of others, the
reforms that he has been talking about today could move forward
on their own. I am sorry to say that California was not one of
those states.
And yet, the leverage of Race to the Top, the creating the
competition with some guardrails around it broke open some of
the most extraordinary reform policies in the last 25 years in
the state: the original parent trigger legislation allowing
parents to charter schools, open enrollment in failing schools,
the ability for the first time to connect the teacher database
with the student performance database.
Those would not have happened in our state without the
federal government's incentive for us to move in that
direction. It is that kind of political cover that I was
talking about earlier that at times unlocks the gridlock that
ultimately hurts kids.
Ms. Keegan. It does, I think, have to do with the politics
of the local state. And I would say that what happened in Race
to the Top is that there were a lot more changes before dollar
one was ever spent because there was a lot of shovel-ready
policies sitting around that couldn't get shoveled through
because of the national organization opposition to it. And all
of a sudden, it got pushed through.
Now, whether at the end of the day, that continues to be a
great idea or, you know, should government always be in this
role at the federal government is--I think that is going to
play out over time as those dollars actually get spent. But
there is no question that dangling it out there pushed through
a lot of great ideas that couldn't otherwise go through.
Hopefully, states will do them anyway.
Mr. Bennett. Mrs. Biggert, I would also add, if I could,
the one thing that--I would applaud the concept of Race to the
Top is it was a great example of marrying a fiscal policy
decision and an education policy decision. There were 4 big
policy issues in Race to the Top. And there was money to those
4 policy issues.
So I think it was a great example of that. It was just, as
Ms. Keegan mentioned, the politics of our state afforded us the
opportunity to move without it.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you.
Thank you. My time has expired.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentlelady.
I thank the witnesses. It has been an extraordinary panel
and a fantastic hearing. Every once in a while, I just luck
into one. But this has been absolutely terrific.
I yield to Mr. Miller for any closing remarks he might
have.
Mr. Miller. Just thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the
hearing.
Chairman Kline. Okay.
Again, extending my thanks to everybody in the room and to
my colleagues, but particularly to the extraordinary panel. I
thank you very much. There being no further business, the
committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]